Oral
Answers to
Questions

Wales

The Secretary of State was asked—

Cost of Living

Mick Whitley: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the cost of living in Wales.

David Davies: I have regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of topics. The Government are providing total support of more than £94 billion across the UK to help households and individuals with the cost of living, at an average of more than £3,300 a household. That includes extending energy support by keeping the energy price guarantee at £2,500 for the next three months.

Mick Whitley: Last month, we learned that household incomes are falling at the fastest rate since records began, forcing the people of Wales to work even harder for less in return, but Britain’s leading food retailer has gouged more than £3 billion in profits from its customers over the past two years alone. With food inflation now at 19%, does the Minister agree that we are living through a cost of greed crisis? When will this Government get serious about tackling the excessive profiteering that is driving up prices and causing real pain for families across Wales and the UK?

David Davies: The Government are serious about dealing with the cost of living crisis, and that is why I am pleased that inflation is shown to be continuing to fall at the moment. This Government are on track to reach our target of halving inflation over the next year. This Government have always supported the most vulnerable in society, which is why I am pleased that we have made sure that pensions, benefits and the minimum wage have gone up in line with inflation.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Stephen Crabb: This Government continue to spend extraordinary sums of money supporting family incomes during this difficult time. Does my right hon. Friend agree that what is not fair to the taxpayer is giving people free cash, including young asylum seekers—no strings attached—through a poorly targeted universal basic income? Is that not what responsible welfare is all about?

David Davies: My right hon. Friend is absolutely correct. It really is extraordinary that the Welsh Labour party not only wants to spend millions of pounds handing out a universal basic income to people including asylum seekers, but then wants to exempt them from having to pay the same legal bills that the rest of us would be subject to. This Government will continue to support the most vulnerable in society, and that is why I am pleased not only with the raising of pensions, benefits and the minimum wage in line with inflation, but with the extra payments made to those most in need.

Alex Davies-Jones: Last week, in response to the cost of living crisis, the Labour Government in Wales increased the education maintenance allowance to £40 a week. This boost is a lifeline to thousands of students in Wales, and I am proud that we have a Labour party stepping up to help, while the UK Government have turned a blind eye. I am sure that the Secretary of State welcomes the uplift, so can he therefore share what discussions he is having with his Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the UK Government can once again follow the Welsh Labour Government’s lead?

David Davies: I can assure the hon. Lady that there are no circumstances under which the UK Conservative Government would want to follow the lead of the Welsh Labour Government, who are coming forward with policies such as raising taxes by wanting to charge people for using the motorways, bringing in a tourism tax and even scrapping meal deals. How will that help a cost of living crisis?

Tom Hunt: Just to hammer home the point that has already been made, does the Secretary of State agree that it speaks to the kind of values that the Labour party has that it is prioritising providing huge support for those who have illegally entered our country over maximising cost of living support for Welsh citizens? The same might be the case in England, were a Labour Government ever to be elected.

David Davies: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The humanitarian response is to disincentivise people from risking their lives by crossing the channel illegally and arriving in small boats. That is why last night I jointly signed a letter that rejects what the Welsh Labour Government are asking for. We are not prepared to see the Welsh Labour Government handing out universal basic incomes to people who should not be in this country in the first place, and then on top of that providing them with legal funding and lawyers, so that they can challenge the decisions being made by the Government. Those are not the priorities of the Welsh people.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Jo Stevens: Inflation is still over 10%, and last month the Chancellor imposed a stealth tax by freezing personal allowances. Today, as we have heard, the Office for National Statistics has confirmed that food prices have risen at their fastest rate for 45 years. How does the Secretary of State expect Welsh households to afford even the most basic supermarket essentials when those have increased by almost 25% this year?

David Davies: Of course, the hon. Lady is correct that we have had financial problems, as a result of having to spend £400 billion during the covid pandemic and the inflation that has been caused by the illegal invasion of Ukraine, and that is why the Government have continued to support the most vulnerable in society. However, the fact of the matter is that the Welsh Labour Government’s response to all of this seems to be to squander taxpayers’ money, with £100 million going to create extra Members of the Senedd, £150 million wasted on plans for a relief road that was never going to be built and now more millions of pounds to be spent on universal basic income and legal fees for asylum seekers.

Jo Stevens: The Secretary of State mentioned inflation earlier, but of course falling inflation does not mean that prices are falling—just that the rate of the price rises is slowing. If Cabinet Ministers cannot get a grip on basics like that, it is no wonder the economy is in such a mess. Is it not the reality that his Government continue to fail households right across Wales, while protecting and rewarding the super-wealthy by refusing to abolish non-dom status and giving a huge pension bung to the top 1%?

David Davies: First, of course, the so-called top pension bung was for doctors, which is actually something that Labour Members had called for themselves. If the hon. Lady is seriously worried about food prices, perhaps she could explain why the Welsh Labour Government want to scrap meal deals and stop people enjoying a drink and a packet of crisps with their food. The fact of the matter is that we will prioritise our help towards the most vulnerable, while the Welsh Labour Government continue to squander it on people who do not need it.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Plaid Cymru spokesperson.

Liz Saville-Roberts: My constituents Malcolm Atherton and Beth Cluer run a café in Trawsfynydd, and they have had to face making the heartbreaking decision to hibernate their business in the face of cripplingly high energy bills. Small and medium-sized businesses are the beating heart of the Welsh economy and employ 62.6% of Welsh workers, yet they received no additional support with their energy bills from the Chancellor in the spring Budget. To ensure that Malcolm and Beth can one day reopen their café, will the Secretary of State be urging his colleagues in the Treasury to increase the energy support available to small businesses?

David Davies: The right hon. Lady will be aware that the Government have provided an unprecedented package of subsidies for businesses through this winter worth £18 billion—those were figures set out by the Office for Budget Responsibility—and, in addition, there have been things such as the freeze on fuel duty. I am very sorry to hear about the circumstances that some individual businesses face, but I can absolutely assure the right hon. Lady that supporting businesses through this difficult time remains a priority for this Conservative Government.

Liz Saville-Roberts: Of course, businesses that are off grid have suffered another experience and a lack of support, but with your tolerance, Mr Speaker, I would like to take the opportunity to raise another matter with the Secretary of State.
Thames Water wastes 630 million litres of water every day through leaky pipes. Rather than fix this environmentally baffling waste, they are planning on moving vast volumes of water from Wales instead. Our natural resources are being diverted elsewhere without recompense, and without consultation with local people either. He says he is Wales’s man in Cabinet. Will he prove it by activating section 48 of the Wales Act 2017 so that decisions about Wales’s resources are made by the people of Wales in Wales?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can I just say to the right hon. Lady that I have a lot of people trying to get in and that this is unfair? You do get the two questions. Please do not take advantage of the rest of the Chamber.

David Davies: I am not responsible for Thames Water, but I have regular meetings with Welsh Water, and this is not an issue it has raised with me. One of the things I am sure the right hon. Lady would agree with is that Welsh Water needs to do more to ensure that there is less sewage and less leakage going into our rivers. Holding it to account is of course something for which the Welsh Labour Government are responsible.

Funding Settlement

John McNally: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the funding settlement for Wales.

Patrick Grady: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the funding settlement for Wales.

David Davies: The Welsh Government are well funded to deliver for Wales. The spending review provided the Welsh Government with a record block grant of £18 billion a year. As a result of the Budget, Welsh Government funding is increasing by a further £180 million over the next two years. This is all on top of the additional £1.2 billion announced at the autumn statement.

John McNally: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer, but the UK Government, as he has just alluded to, have recently clawed back £155 million from the Welsh Government Budget, rather than allowing it to be carried forward into the next financial year. I can only assume that, in clawing back these funds, for some bizarre reason the Secretary of State thinks the UK Government are working in the best interests of the Welsh people. Can he tell us if that is so?

David Davies: The funds were not “clawed back”, and there was no “bizarre” reasoning about it. The money was not spent by the Welsh Government; they managed to fail to spend £155 million in the midst of a pandemic, which is extraordinary. The Welsh Government are receiving £1.20 on the NHS for every £1 spent in the United Kingdom, and that money is not being passed on in full. That is why in Wales, under a Labour Government, we wait longer for our ambulances, longer on hospital waiting lists, and we have less access to the treatment that people are now taking for granted in England.

Patrick Grady: The Secretary of State is making the case for precisely the kind of financial flexibility that the devolved Administrations require. The reality of inflation and the mishandling of the economy is that the Welsh budget is worth £4 billion less than it was when it was first agreed, and the same thing is happening in Scotland. If the Government will not adequately finance the devolved institutions, why will they not devolve reasonable borrowing powers, so that we can ensure that adequate budgets are set for the benefit of our constituents?

David Davies: If I ever decide that I want to have lessons in sound management of public finances, I probably will not be asking the Scottish National party. The Welsh Labour Government have had a real-terms increase in spending over the spending review period, and it is for others to answer for why they are unable to deliver the same level of healthcare and education, why they are not building roads, and why they are spending the money they are getting on paying the legal bills of asylum seekers.

Virginia Crosbie: Under this UK Government, my constituency has been awarded £17 million from the levelling-up fund to regenerate Holyhead, £20 million to refurbish the Holyhead Gateway, £16 million from the shared prosperity fund, £2.7 million from the culture recovery fund, hundreds of new jobs at the inland border facility, £175 million for the RAF Valley, and now Anglesey has freeport status, with the potential to create 13,000 jobs and £1 billion to the economy. Does the Secretary of State agree that this Conservative UK Government are determined to level up places such as Anglesey in north Wales that have been forgotten by Labour in Cardiff—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Can we try to help? I want to get more people in, and the only way I can do that is with shorter questions.

David Davies: Others in the House may try to shout down my hon. Friend, but they will not succeed, because she has been unstinting in her support for her constituency. It is no coincidence that the Prime Minister wanted to make Ynys Môn the first place he visited as Prime Minister, to celebrate the announcement of growth deals that will deliver growth and levelling up across the whole of Wales and the United Kingdom.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call Michael Fabricant.

Michael Fabricant: Many of my constituents, including me, visit Tywyn in Gwynedd. Is my right hon. Friend aware that people need healthcare there, funded of course by the grant, yet Tywyn Hospital has closed its minor injuries unit and its in-patient ward? Will he speak to the Welsh Minister for Health and Social Services and discuss how English tourists will get proper healthcare when they are on holiday in Wales?

David Davies: I am, as ever, grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, but unfortunately I am unable to give a detailed answer because the national health service is devolved in Wales. I very much hope that Welsh Labour Ministers will want to explain why, with  all the extra money they are getting, above the money that is given to the national health service in England, they are unable to deliver the same standards of healthcare, or for that matter education, as those we take for granted under a Conservative Government run in Westminster.

Private Rental Costs

Mark Tami: What discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on the impact of rising private rental costs on renters in Wales.

James Davies: The Secretary of State has regular discussions with Cabinet colleagues on a range of topics. In England we have committed to tackling issues in the private rental sector, including improving standards through the introduction of the decent homes standard, and providing tenants with greater security by banning “no fault” evictions. However, as the right hon. Member will know, rental issues in Wales are a matter for the Welsh Government.

Mark Tami: Low quality, expensive private rented accommodation is a problem not only in Wales but throughout the UK. Does the Minister agree that we need more council housing built to a high standard, and will he join me in praising Flintshire County Council for its excellent programme of council house building? That would be an example to the rest of the country, but we need more investment in that area overall.

James Davies: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that question. North Wales certainly has a deficit of housing, as do many other areas, and, as he says, that certainly needs to be addressed through building more homes. I would point out that in 2021-22 there were three new homes built in England per 1,000 and just 1.7 per 1,000 in Wales, so there is much work to do.

David Jones: According to Rent Smart Wales, the number of registered landlords in Wales fell by 328 during the two years to January this year and there were 301 fewer rental properties available. Does my hon. Friend agree that a significant cause of the current worrying state of the private rental market in Wales is the new legislation introduced by the Welsh Government, which imposes expensive and byzantine licensing obligations on landlords? Does he also agree with the Labour cabinet member for housing on Torfaen Borough Council, Councillor David Daniels, who recently told the council’s scrutiny committee that the new law was the straw that broke the camel’s back, because for landlords it has just been one thing too many?

James Davies: I thank my right hon. Friend and constituency neighbour. He is perfectly right to raise this issue. He is referring to the Renting Homes (Wales) Act 2016. It may be well intentioned, but the fact is that there is a shortage of housing and if we want to keep landlords in the market we need to incentivise them, so the mandatory regulations and costs imposed are really in place at the wrong time.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Gerald Jones: Private rental costs in Wales increased by 4.2% in the year to February 2023, the highest annual percentage change since the Tories came to power. The Government have accepted the need to uplift benefits in line with inflation, but they have completely failed to accept that the same principles should, at the very least, apply to the local housing allowance. Given that rent is the largest item of a family’s budget, can the Minister explain exactly why this is one area of policy where the Government do not seem to believe that inflation exists?

James Davies: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the local housing allowance rates were raised to the 30th percentile in 2020 and that there is also support through the discretionary housing payment scheme. There is, in addition, the whole array of support that has been provided through the recent cost of living pressures.

Rail Infrastructure

Liz Twist: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on rail infrastructure in Wales.

Ashley Dalton: What recent discussions he has had with Cabinet colleagues on rail infrastructure in Wales.

David Davies: I regularly engage with Cabinet Ministers on a range of transport measures. Over £390 million has already been provided for rail improvements in Wales since 2020, including at Bow Street Station, with the electrification of the Severn tunnel and through Cardiff Crossrail.

Liz Twist: Avanti chaos has hit services between Holyhead and Crewe. For communities in north Wales and the north-west of England, the line is an ongoing nightmare. What guarantees will the Secretary of State provide that those services will be restored?

David Davies: The hon. Lady has a point. A number of complaints have been made about Avanti by Members of Parliament of all parties and I think there is a recognition that things could be a lot better than they are. Avanti is well aware of that and has been told that it needs to improve the service quickly. I can assure her that the Department for Transport is well aware of the problems she raises.

Ashley Dalton: Rail connectivity is crucial to the border communities of Wales and England, such as connections between Wrexham and Merseyside. Furthermore, Merseyside is just as inaccessible for some communities in the north of England as it is in Wales. Skelmersdale in my constituency is a community of 40,000 people, but has been left without access to a train station since 1958. Will the Secretary of State tell me how the Government plan to make sure our communities on both sides of the border have access to rail services?

David Davies: I welcome that question from the hon. Lady. I am sure the people of north Wales would welcome many more of her constituents coming down  to visit and spending money in the local tourism industry, if they can afford the tourism tax imposed by the Welsh Labour Government. To answer her question simply, there will be a rail network enhancements pipeline review out shortly. I believe it will contain good news for rail users across Wales, which will benefit travellers from across the United Kingdom.

Kevin Foster: With meal deal bans, tourism taxes and road charges, it is no surprise that many Welsh residents will be thinking of getting the train for a holiday in Torbay to avoid all of them. What discussions is the Secretary of State having to ensure that the rail infrastructure between south Wales and the south-west of England will be able to cope with the demand?

David Davies: I am sure that Torbay is a wonderful place, but I would still recommend that people come to Wales instead to enjoy its coastline. To do that, they would need to go either by train or by car, so it is unfortunate that the Welsh Labour Government have also decided to stop all road building, whereas the United Kingdom Government are getting on with building roads and railways.

Daniel Kawczynski: One of the most important rail links into mid-Wales is through Shrewsbury. We are proud to be a border community, and of our links with Wales. We are campaigning for electrification of the line from Birmingham to Shrewsbury and beyond to Wales. Will the Minister take an interest in our project to try to electrify this vital artery for residents in mid-Wales?

David Davies: I will take an interest in that matter, but it is more for the Department for Transport than for my good self. I have taken an interest in the fact that a great deal of work is going on in the Forest of Dean area to ensure that commuters on both sides of the border can enjoy more reliable rail travel.

Spring Budget 2023: Welsh Communities

Robbie Moore: What assessment he has made of the potential impact of the Spring Budget 2023 on Welsh communities.

James Davies: The spring Budget delivered for Wales. As announced, the Government will provide £20 million to restore the Holyhead breakwater, deliver at least one investment zone in Wales and provide up to £20 billion for the development of carbon capture usage and storage across the UK, which Wales is well-placed to benefit from.

Robbie Moore: The UK Government prove time and again that they are delivering for Wales, whether through supporting hundreds of thousands of households with the energy price guarantee or through the £20-million Holyhead breakwater. However, does my hon. Friend agree that the Welsh Labour Government are advertising Wales as closed for business, with the recent ban on road building and tax on tourism?

James Davies: I could not agree more. The Welsh Government’s response to the roads review was more of a roadblock. There has been widespread rejection of the tourism tax from the sector, including UK Hospitality, which has called it “anti-competitive”. The contrast between the approaches of the two Governments is stark: the UK Government are striking trade deals and promoting Britain as open for business, while the Welsh Government seem focused on punishing small business owners.

Chris Bryant: A little birdy tells me that the Secretary of State has had a meeting about the Rhondda tunnel in the last few days. I hope very much—as no doubt do you, Mr Speaker—that there will be an announcement soon of some money to ensure that the Rhondda tunnel can be opened up, making it the second longest cycle tunnel in the whole of Europe and a great advert for tourism in the Welsh valleys. Will he meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) so that we can explain to him its significant benefits and he can lobby to get that money for the Rhondda tunnel?

James Davies: The hon. Member is right to raise that question. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tells me that he would be happy to hold a meeting with him, and adds that Rhondda Cynon Taf council should be encouraged to make a levelling-up fund bid.

Healthcare Services

Jerome Mayhew: Whether he has had recent discussions with the Welsh Government on the adequacy of healthcare services in Wales.

James Davies: I have discussions with the Welsh Government about the adequacy of Welsh healthcare services—most recently about Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board being put back into special measures. However, the Department for Health and Social Care regularly engages and collaborates with the Welsh Government to share best practice on achieving better outcomes for patients UK-wide.

Jerome Mayhew: The Secretary of State has just told us that the Welsh Government receives £1.20 in health funding for every pound spent in England. Despite that, the Welsh Government are the only Government in the United Kingdom to cut funding to the NHS. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Labour party has proved itself incapable in office of running health services?

James Davies: I very much share his concern across Wales, especially north Wales. Yesterday, in the latest troubling revelations about Betsi Cadwaladr, we learned that the First Minister was wrong to state that the Auditor General had recommended taking the board out of special measures just prior to the 2020 devolved elections. On funding, the Welsh Government may repeatedly call for more money, but they are the only Government in the UK to cut health spending. In the latest budget they have set out plans to cut day-to-day spending on the delivery of NHS services in real terms this year compared with last year, while the UK Government are providing a real-terms increase.

Devolution Settlement

Rob Roberts: What recent discussions he has had with the First Minister of Wales on the adequacy of the operation of the devolution settlement for people in Wales.

James Davies: The Secretary of State for Wales has regular discussions with the First Minister on how our two Governments can work together within the current devolution settlement to deliver for Wales. Our recent agreement to establish two Welsh freeports shows what we can achieve when we work together for the benefit of people and communities in Wales.

Rob Roberts: Given that the Senedd sits for only two days a week and, if yesterday’s reports are anything to go by, that the First Minister is less than truthful with his answers anyway, can my hon. Friend fathom any reason why they need to expand Senedd membership by 60%, at huge cost to the Welsh taxpayer? Does he agree with me that the Welsh people should be asked whether they want more MSs working only two days a week?

James Davies: The hon. Member is right to ask that question. I fully agree with him that the last thing people in Wales want is more politicians in Cardiff bay. The Welsh Government would be better spending the estimated £100 million that they suppose this would cost on public services. If the Welsh Government and their separatist allies are so confident that these proposals should progress, then I agree that they should seek the agreement of people in Wales through a referendum.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Abena Oppong-Asare: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 April.

Rishi Sunak: Later today, I will return to Belfast to mark the 25th anniversary of the Belfast/Good Friday agreement. It is an opportunity to thank some of the leading architects of peace for their courage and the pivotal role they played to set the groundwork for a better future for the people of Northern Ireland. We will also commemorate those who are no longer with us.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Abena Oppong-Asare: We are in the middle of a housing crisis, with mortgages soaring, rents rising and house building set to reach a new low. Just last week, in an interview with ConservativeHome, the Prime Minister admitted his disastrous decision to drop housing targets to appease Tory party members. Will the Prime Minister please explain to the House why the views of 1,000 party members are more important than those of families aspiring to be homeowners across the country?

Rishi Sunak: On the Government side of the House we believe in empowering local communities to make the decisions that are right for them and to protect their green spaces. The place where there is most acute need, where house building is not keeping up with need, is in Labour-controlled London.

Chris Clarkson: It has been reported that the Welsh Labour Government are going to incentivise people smugglers by offering £1,600 of taxpayers’ money every month to asylum seekers. May I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that he will never contemplate such a daft idea in our small boats Bill?

Rishi Sunak: I know my noble Friend Lord Bellamy and the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), wrote to the Welsh Government yesterday confirming that we would not be undertaking their request. I note that the Labour leader has said that the Welsh Labour Government are his “blueprint”. Unbelievably, as my hon. Friend said, Labour in Wales is trying to pay illegal migrants £1,600. We are stopping the boats; Labour is paying for them.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: The Tory party chair says that public services are in pretty good shape. Has the Prime Minister met a single member of the public who agrees with him?

Rishi Sunak: Because of the record investment that we are putting into public services like the NHS, we are now getting waiting lists down. Because of the reforms that we have made to our education system, more children are studying in good and outstanding schools. Because that is what you get with a Conservative Government—more funding, more reform and better outcomes for Britain.

Keir Starmer: He is living in another world to the rest of us. People waiting more than two days for an ambulance because they broke the NHS. Only one in 100 rapists going to court because they broke the criminal justice system. A record number of small boats crossing the channel because they broke the asylum system. People can’t afford their bills, can’t get the police to investigate crimes, can’t get a doctor’s appointment. Does that really sound like pretty good shape to him?

Rishi Sunak: What is the record since 2010? Since 2010, crime is down by 50% under the Conservative Government. There are 20,000 more police officers, we have given them more powers, and we have toughened up sentencing—all opposed by Sir Softie over there.[Official Report, 24 April 2023, Vol. 731, c. 4MC.]

Keir Starmer: Either the Prime Minister—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Our constituents want to hear the questions and the answers. You will progress questions beyond—[Interruption.] The Prime Minister wants to leave early, along with the Leader of the Opposition. Help me to help them!

Keir Starmer: Either the Prime Minister does not use the same public services as the rest of us or he simply cannot see the damage that the Government have done to our country. In 2019, Arie Ali, a convicted people smuggler, threw boiling water over a prison officer, leaving him with first degree burns. The prison officer said that it felt like acid and his face was on fire. His attacker was found guilty and received a prison sentence, quite rightly in my view. Does the Prime Minister agree?

Rishi Sunak: Our record is clear on sentencing. It was this party and this Government who passed the sentencing Act last year. It toughened up sentences, and the average custodial sentence since 2010 has now increased by almost two thirds. For child sex abusers, it is up by 15 months; for rapists, it is up by two years. When our sentencing Act ended the automatic early release of offenders who pose a danger to the public, it was the Labour party that voted against it.

Keir Starmer: The problem is, Prime Minister, that Arie Ali’s sentence ended up being suspended. Anyone watching this would wonder why someone who violently attacks a key worker is not behind bars. Well, the Court judgment spelled it out: it is because it took 16 months for the attacker to be charged. That is ridiculous. It took another two years before he was sentenced—completely unacceptable. Cannot the Prime Minister see that because the Government have lost control of the courts service, because they have created the largest court backlog on record, he is letting violent criminals go free?

Rishi Sunak: Here is the record: we are cracking down on grooming gangs, and the Leader of the Opposition is uncomfortable addressing them. We toughened the law on sex offenders so they spend longer in prison; he voted against it. We have increased rape convictions by over 60%; meanwhile, he attended 21 Sentencing Council meetings that watered down punishments. That is why they call him Sir Softie: soft on crime, soft on criminals.

Keir Starmer: I have prosecuted thousands upon thousands of sex offenders. The Prime Minister has just shown that he does not understand how the criminal justice system works. No wonder he cannot fix it. He thinks that cracking down on crime is suspending a sentence where someone should be in prison. That shows the problem.
Another reason cited by the Court for suspending the sentence in Arie Ali’s case was a letter from the Justice Secretary in February about prison overcrowding. As a result of that letter, courts have been told to have awareness of the impact of current prison population levels when passing sentences. In simple terms, the wrecking ball that the Tories have taken to criminal justice means that thousands of people who should be in prison are not.

Dominic Raab: indicated dissent.

Keir Starmer: The Justice Secretary shakes his head. He should read the judgment.
The Court also said that it is
“for government to communicate to the courts when prison conditions have returned to a more normal state.”
I know that the Justice Secretary has been busy trying to save his own job rather than actually doing it, but has the Prime Minister asked him when he is going to get a grip on the prison system and withdraw that letter, which is allowing criminals to walk free?

Rishi Sunak: We are in the process of building 20,000 more prison places. That is what this Government are delivering. We are toughening up sentencing and putting more people behind bars, and making sure that our most serious offenders spend longer there.
I love it when the right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about his record as a lefty lawyer. I have been looking at this, and I have read that people were “really disappointed” that his organisation had been “letting down…victims.” That was not even my assessment; it was that of his shadow Attorney General.

Hon. Members:: More!

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I want to us get through these questions, and so do my constituents. To any Member present who is not interested in his or her constituents, I say, “Please leave the Chamber.”

Keir Starmer: When I was in office as Director of Public Prosecutions, those on the Benches opposite were my greatest supporters. In 2013, the Home Affairs Committee said:
“ We would…like to commend the work of the Director for Public Prosecution, Keir Starmer… Mr Starmer has striven to improve the treatment of…sexual assault”.
The Committee goes on to say—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Prime Minister’s Questions matter to our constituents. [Interruption.] I wouldn’t if I were you; it is not the day for it. I want to get through these questions, because I am trying to help the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. You are not being helpful, but we will hear this question, no matter how long it takes.

Keir Starmer: This was in 2013—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Ms Stevenson, I have heard you for a few weeks, and this will be the last week. I suggest that you keep quiet, otherwise it is better that you leave.

Keir Starmer: In 2013, the Home Affairs Committee went on to say that the work I did
“should provide a model to…other agencies”,
and that
“when he leaves the Crown Prosecution Service…he will be missed.”
That report was presented to Parliament by the then Home Secretary and future Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and the Government—those on the opposite Benches—noted and supported it. It is obviously always a good look to have your work recognised, although they did lay it on a bit thick.
Perhaps the Prime Minister should spend less time trying to rewrite history and more time sorting out the mess that he has made of criminal justice; but the crisis in criminal justice is just a snapshot of public services  collapsing on his watch. People can see it wherever they look. Our roads, our trains, the NHS, the asylum system, policing, mental health provision—the Tories have broken them all, and all that they have left are excuses and blame. I know that the Prime Minister would rather talk about a maths lesson than about the state of the country, but perhaps he could solve this equation: why, after 13 years of a Tory Government, are patients waiting longer than ever, criminals walking free and growth non-existent, and why, everywhere we look, does nothing seem to work at all?

Rishi Sunak: I cannot quite remember, but I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman started by talking about the time when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, in 2013. I am actually glad he brought that up, because something else happened when he was DPP in 2013: he got his own special law, and I have it right here. It is called The Pensions Increase—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I expect both sides to listen to the questions and the answers.

Rishi Sunak: It is called The Pensions Increase (Pension Scheme for Keir Starmer QC) Regulations 2013.
We are introducing a transformative policy to help doctors to cut the waiting lists faster. The right hon. and learned Gentleman wants to raise taxes on public sector workers. It is, literally, one law for him and tax rises for everyone else. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Double—do not make me double down on you.

Sally-Ann Hart: Recently, I presented a Prime Minister’s Points of Light award to Joan Willett, who is nearly 107, for her fundraising for the British Heart Foundation, and two other Hastings and Rye residents, Anthony Kimber and Alastair Fairley, were celebrated as community champions at No. 10. Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking all our fantastic volunteers and community champions, not only in Hastings and Rye but throughout the United Kingdom, and will he continue to bring them together in celebration?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend and I am absolutely delighted that Joan received her Points of Light award. Volunteers and community champions such as Joan, Anthony and Alastair all make important contributions to their local community and we are all grateful to them. Every month, millions do the same thing and they deserve our praise. Their generosity is integral to what makes our country and our communities special, and it is right that we do everything we can to celebrate them.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the leader of the SNP.

Stephen Flynn: Mr Speaker—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. As I said, I really do want to try to help the Prime Minister. If you don’t, I do.

Stephen Flynn: I am delighted to hear that Members had an equally peaceful and relaxing Easter break, as I did.
Prime Minister, was it their refusal to stand alongside striking workers on the picket line, their acceptance of the economic damage being caused by Brexit, or perhaps their support for denying the people of Scotland the right to choose their own future that led to the leader of the Scottish Conservative party urging voters to back Labour?

Rishi Sunak: What we are doing is not getting distracted by the things that are going on elsewhere; we are focused on delivering for the people of Scotland. We are making sure that we fund public services well, with £1.5 billion extra in Barnett consequentials. We are making sure that we provide support with the cost of living. I know that, at the moment, the hon. Gentleman and his party are focused on other matters. We are just going to motor on with the job.

Stephen Flynn: Let me be clear: we will take no lectures from a party that has not had a mandate to govern in Scotland since 1955, that went through three Prime Ministers in the course of just a matter of months, that crashed the economy, that sent mortgage rates soaring and that has taken energy support away from families most in need. The Prime Minister has been fined by the polis not once but twice, they take donations from Russian-backed donors and they have stuffed the House of Lords with people like Baroness Mone. But let us be clear: what we are talking about is the fact that the leader of the Scottish Conservatives believes that the people of Scotland should return Labour party Members of Parliament to this House rather than Scottish National party Members. So is not the message for the people of Scotland quite clear? Don’t give the Tories what they want.

Rishi Sunak: Actually, the Scottish Conservatives deserve enormous praise for forcing the SNP into abandoning its completely unworkable, fundamentally flawed deposit return scheme. So it is good that the SNP U-turned and listened to the voices of the Scottish Conservatives and to business, and we look forward to working with them on delivering something that actually works to deliver for the people of Scotland. And that is just it, because if the SNP cannot fix the mess that Nicola Sturgeon left the party in, how can it possibly fix the mess that she left Scotland in?

David Davis: It seems clear that the junior doctors’ strike is causing a serious risk of loss of life, and certainly causing harm and pain to thousands of our constituents. The first line of the Hippocratic oath is “First, do no harm”. When does the Prime Minister think the British Medical Association abandoned this central tenet of its profession?

Rishi Sunak: We value the work of junior doctors and are keen to find a fair and reasonable settlement that recognises their role and the wider economic context facing the UK. My right hon. Friend is right to highlight the impact on patient safety, and that is why this Government have brought forward minimum safety legislation to ensure that patients can rely on a core  level of emergency service to protect vital patient care. That is something that we on this side of the House support, but I know it is not something that is supported by the party opposite.

Edward Davey: Tooth decay is the No. 1 reason that children over the age of four end up in hospital. Regular dental check-ups could prevent it, but too many parents cannot get one for their child. In the East Riding of Yorkshire, there are now almost 3,000 people per NHS dentist. In places such as Herefordshire and Norfolk, fewer than two in five children have been seen by a dentist in the past year. This is a scandal, so will the Prime Minister take up the Liberal Democrat plan to end this crisis and make sure people can get an NHS dentist when they need one?

Rishi Sunak: The NHS recently reformed dentistry contracts, which will improve access for patients. Dentistry receives about £3 billion a year, and there were around 500 more dentists delivering care in the NHS last year than in the previous year. I am pleased to say that almost 45% more children saw an NHS dentist last year compared with the year before.

Anne Marie Morris: At Prime Minister’s Question Time on 4 February 2015, David Cameron said he was determined to do whatever it took to fix the Dawlish railway line—the only route to the south-west. Phase 4 risks losing part of its agreed funding, while phase 5 has fallen foul of a 10-year moratorium on new funding. The line is only as resilient as its weakest link. Will the Prime Minister commit to getting this resilience programme back on track and fully funded?

Rishi Sunak: We are committed to improving the resilience of this iconic stretch of railway, which provides a vital link for people in the south-west. That is why, to date, we have invested more than £165 million in delivering solutions to protect the line. Network Rail continues to develop the case for further investment, and my hon. Friend will be keen to feed into that.

Chris Law: This week, not only has my city of Dundee announced that its flights will connect with Heathrow but the Scottish Government have committed to Dundee being at the forefront of making Scotland a major world economy, bringing investment, jobs and opportunity. However, the UK Government seem to have a problem with this. Scotland’s international engagement is to be reduced. Despite being paid for through Scotland’s wealth and taxes, UK ambassadors and diplomats have been instructed to obstruct the Scottish Government’s international engagement, with every foreign nation told not to deal with the Scottish Government directly. This has already been described as
“smacking of a parent trying, and failing, to control a teenager.”
Will the Prime Minister assure me and the businesses, the wealth creators and, most importantly, my constituents who want to see Dundee and Scotland prosper that, during this short time that Scotland remains in this unequal Union, Scotland will neither be put back in a box nor bend a knee?

Rishi Sunak: I am pleased to say that we are supporting the communities of Dundee, which received £14 million from the levelling-up fund to support a green transport hub in the city centre. This demonstrates that the UK Government want to invest in the communities of Scotland and to deliver for Scottish people.

Saqib Bhatti: On Saturday, I joined my 17-year-old constituent Alfie Ford in walking to raise funds for the National Autistic Society. Alfie’s mission is to walk 15,000 steps every day in the month of April to raise awareness of autism and to show that every autistic person deserves the best chance in life. This Saturday, he is walking from Birmingham City football club to Edgbaston stadium and back again. Will the Prime Minister join me in wishing Alfie the very best for his walk, and for his noble mission to change for good how people think about autism?

Rishi Sunak: I praise Alfie for his fantastic efforts. He is an inspiration not just for his community but for many others, and I wish him the best of luck for Saturday. Our autism strategy sets out our ambition to ensure that autistic people across all parts of the country get the support they need to live fulfilling and happy lives, and I look forward to seeing Alfie’s progress on the rest of his journey.

Stuart McDonald: My constituent Lisa and her civil service colleagues have worked tirelessly and with distinction during some of the most challenging times, but she is fed up with Ministers patting them on the back while imposing derisory 2% and, now, 4.5% pay rises, despite years of pay restraint and, now, double-digit inflation. She asks simply:
“Why should I keep working for a UK government that treats its workers with such contempt?”
Will the Prime Minister stop with the myths and excuses, and start negotiating a fair deal with the unions?

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to all our hard-working public sector workers for the job they do. We have a well-established independent pay review body process for making sure that we can have pay settlements that are fair and affordable. I am very pleased that we have reached agreement with many unions on those pay settlements and I hope that those members vote in support of them.

Shailesh Vara: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those who seek to criticise the Conservative record on law and order should look in the mirror and ask, “Who was Director of Public Prosecutions for some of those years?”

Rishi Sunak: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Our record is clear. We have halved crime since 2010; neighbourhood crime has fallen by 25% just in the last few years; criminals are spending longer in prison; and, crucially, we, unlike the Labour party, are giving the police the powers they need to tackle violent protests.

Owen Thompson: My elderly constituent Anne has been in Turkey for five weeks now after her husband suffered a devastating  brain bleed—he is now in intensive care. Their holiday insurance company, Staysure, has refused to pay medical bills and has so far refused to engage with me. This has resulted in Anne being stuck with extortionate medical bills and surgery costs, which she has covered by using their life savings. With finances now running out, they are both stranded and have been advised that they will need to find at least £50,000 to pay for an air ambulance to bring them home. Will the Prime Minister meet me to consider all possible options to support constituents such as Anne and her husband in difficult situations such as that, especially where insurance companies abdicate all responsibility?

Rishi Sunak: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I am very sorry to hear about the case that he raises. My thoughts are with Anne and her husband, as I am sure everyone’s will be, at this difficult time. I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman gets a meeting as soon as possible with the relevant Minister to discuss and progress this case further.

Harriett Baldwin: Can I tell a tale of two councils? My constituents who live in Conservative-controlled Wychavon District Council have enjoyed six years of council tax freezes and excellent public services, while my constituents who live in the Malvern Hills District Council area, which is run by a rag-tag-bag of so-called independents and Greens, pay nearly 50% more in council tax for a band D property. Does the Prime Minister agree that the best thing my constituents can do on the cost of living is to vote Conservative on 4 May?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is of course right. Right across the country, those who live in Conservative council areas pay lower council tax than those in Labour council areas. The choice at this election is clear: it is the Conservatives who deliver for you and it is Labour that costs you.

Rosie Duffield: This week, the Women’s Rights Network published a report by criminologist Professor Jo Phoenix called “When we are at our most vulnerable”. It revealed that, between January 2019 and October 2022, which includes the pandemic lockdown, of course, there were a staggering 6,539 reported rapes and sexual assaults in UK hospital settings. That is an average of 33 incidents every single week. As eight police forces did not provide any data, the real figures are bound to be significantly higher. What can the Prime Minister and his Government do to ensure that all women, staff and patients are safe in Britain’s hospitals?

Rishi Sunak: First, may I say that I was deeply shocked and appalled, like the hon. Lady, to hear about the cases of sexual assault and abuse in the NHS. I pay tribute to her for her long-standing campaign on these issues. NHS organisations are responsible for protecting their staff and patients from sexual harassment and conduct. They have recently established a domestic abuse and sexual violence programme to build more robust safeguarding processes for protecting patients, and we will work very closely with them to ensure that that is implemented. I know that she will hold us to account for doing that.

Simon Baynes: On 2 June, Corwen station on the Llangollen steam railway will be officially reopened, having been closed 60 years ago under the Beeching axe. Will the Prime Minister join me in congratulating the volunteers, the local community and the funders who have made that possible, and take his own share of the credit for granting the levelling-up fund to Clwyd South when he was Chancellor, which has paid for the magnificent new roof on Corwen station?

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for all his campaigning on this. I am delighted that the levelling-up fund has delivered for Corwen station. It is a huge boost to local ambitions to see trains returning there. I know that a small team of the project’s volunteers have built the majority of the station, and they deserve credit, and that a local company in Wrexham has supplied the new steelwork for the canopy roof, providing a welcome boost to the local economy. I look forward to seeing the station open this summer.

Daniel Zeichner: Over recess, I was invited to visit one of the major supermarkets in my constituency to discuss food waste. What struck me most was the experience of shop workers on the frontline. They told me that they expect to suffer a violent assault every single day that they go to work. Although more maths might always be helpful, what is this out-of-touch Prime Minister doing to make sure that people can be safe in their workplace?

Rishi Sunak: Everyone deserves to be safe in their workplace, which is why we are making sure that, through our sentencing Act, we have appropriate sentencing in place and, more generally, that we have police officers and community support officers across the country to help combat crime. We will happily look at future sentencing when we look at reviews of that case.

Chris Green: Leadership and teamwork delivered Bolton Wanderers a superb 4-0 victory in the Papa John’s trophy match at Wembley. It is delivering the Bolton College of Medical Sciences and delivered Ayyub Patel’s superb Rumworth by-election victory. What message does my right hon. Friend have for Councillor Patel and all the campaigners, candidates and activists, as we run into this festival of democracy, our local elections?

Rishi Sunak: I share in my hon. Friend’s congratulations for all those in Bolton, but also offer my commiserations to those in Plymouth, especially to   our party chairman who is an avid supporter of the green army. Most importantly, I welcome the election of Councillor Patel and look forward to his joining our other councillors in delivering for their local areas, with less crime, lower council tax and, importantly, filling more potholes.

Alistair Carmichael: Last week, the Home Office announced that it would not be setting up a bespoke visa scheme for the fishing industry of the sort that is already available for people working in fish farms and in offshore wind farms. It also told skippers that crew previously employed by them under a temporary scheme had to stop working immediately. As a consequence of that announcement, in fishing ports around the coast today, many fishing boats are tied up unable to go to sea. It is the only time that this Home Secretary has been successful in our stated ambition of stopping the boats. The Prime Minister and his party promised our fishermen a sea of opportunity if they would support them, but what is the point of a sea of opportunity if they cannot get crew to fish in it?

Rishi Sunak: I am not sure that I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s characterisation. We are proud champions of the UK’s fishing industry, not least with our £100 million investment in fishing communities. We are always looking to engage with those communities to make sure that they get the support that they need. Crucially, all the opportunities that are there for them because of Brexit, we are keen to make sure that we deliver.

Jane Hunt: Will the Prime Minister join me in thanking Lorna and Shirley of the Marios Tinenti Centre and the local churches in Loughborough for all their hard work in establishing a community allotment? Local people use the facility as a great place to get outdoors as well as to relax.

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to Lorna and Shirley for all their fantastic work. Allotments can do wonders not just for, as my hon. Friend said, providing food, but for wellbeing and providing a place of sanctuary for people around the country, and they deserve enormous praise for creating one for the benefit of their community.

Lindsay Hoyle: That completes Prime Minister’s questions.

Chinese Police Stations in UK

Yvette Cooper: (Urgent Question): To ask the Home Secretary if she will make a statement on secret police stations operated in the UK by the Chinese Communist party.

Chris Philp: Ordinarily, the Minister for Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat) would have responded to this urgent question, because it sits within his portfolio. He is in Northern Ireland today, so I have been asked to respond in his place.
The latest reporting in The Times on the so-called overseas police stations are of course of great concern. As my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security said in his previous statement on the matter in November last year, investigations by the law enforcement community are ongoing, which limits what I can say in the House about a live investigation into a sensitive matter. As Members will appreciate, I do not want to say anything that would jeopardise any operational investigations or indeed any potential future prosecutions.
I will, however, take this opportunity to reassure the House of the Government’s resolve to protect every community in this country from transnational repression. Protecting the people of the United Kingdom is of the utmost importance. Any attempt to coerce, intimidate or illegally repatriate any individual will not be tolerated. That egregious activity is part of a wider train of authoritarian Governments—not just China, but others—perpetrating transnational repression in an effort to silence their critics overseas, undermine democracy and the rule of law, and further their own narrow geopolitical interests.
Through our police forces and the intelligence agencies that work with them, we take a proactive approach to protecting individuals and communities from threats. Where we identify individuals who may be at heightened risk we are front-footed in deploying security measures and guidance where necessary.
The upcoming National Security Bill will strengthen our powers to deal with transnational repression and with agents of foreign states more generally. Coercion, harassment or intimidation linked to a foreign power will be criminalised under the new foreign interference offence in that Bill. Existing criminal offences against a person, such as assault, will in future command higher sentences where they are undertaken at the behest of a foreign power through the state threats aggravating factor in that Bill.
The National Security Bill will also introduce a new foreign influence registration scheme, and we will not hesitate to use those new powers to bear down on the activities of foreign entities of concern. The Bill will return to this House in early May and I call on all hon. Members to support it when it does.
It is clear, however, that we can and must do more. That is why the Prime Minister asked my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security to lead a new defending democracy taskforce, a key priority of which is to enhance our response to transnational repression. That work is ongoing and he will provide an update to the  House in due course. It builds on the work done by his ministerial predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), who I see is in his place. I am clear, as is the rest of Government, that the repression of communities in the UK will not be tolerated and must be stopped.

Yvette Cooper: It is reported in The Times this morning that a Chinese businessman linked to an alleged Chinese secret police station in London has attended Chinese Communist party political conferences, is linked to the united front work department and has organised Tory party fundraising dinners and attended events with Conservative Prime Ministers. Those very serious allegations raise vital national security questions, and I think the Home Secretary should be here to answer them.
The director general of MI5 has warned about the Chinese authorities both trying to influence our politics and running operations to monitor and intimidate the Chinese diaspora, including forcibly repatriating Chinese nationals. In November, we questioned the Minister for Security about possible secret police stations in Croydon, Hendon and Glasgow. He provided no information, but said he would come back with an update. He has not done so. Nor has he met with my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones), despite promising to do so.
Other countries have taken visible action. This week, two men were arrested by the FBI in New York for suspected operations, and in the Netherlands similar operations have been shut down. In the UK, however, we have heard nothing—no reports of arrests and no reassurance that these operations have been closed down. Instead, we are told that one key individual has been vice-chairman of the Chinese group fundraising for the Conservative Association in the City of London, and has attended party-organised events with two out of the last three Conservative Prime Ministers.
Can the Minister tell us the full extent of that individual’s involvement with the Conservative party and contact with any Ministers? What actions have Ministers and the party taken? What have the Government done about the alleged secret police stations in Croydon and elsewhere? Have their operations been closed down?
The lack of answers will raise grave concerns that the Government are not addressing the scale of this threat and are not updating Parliament for fear of party political embarrassment because of the connections with the Conservative party. That is not good enough. Party political concerns must never—repeat: never—be put before our national security. The country deserves answers.

Chris Philp: The shadow Home Secretary asks a number of a questions relating to the specific individual named in The Times today in connection with his activities in Croydon, which is, as she will appreciate, the borough that I represent in Parliament—this is of great concern to me as well as to the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). I can tell the House that I have been briefed today, as one would expect—at short notice, as this is not ordinarily part of my ministerial portfolio—and there is a live investigation of this matter by the law enforcement community. As I said in my opening remarks, I cannot comment on the details of such an investigation while it is live for reasons that will  be obvious to all Members of this House. As soon as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security is in a position to provide an update on the results of that investigation, he will do so. I will also ask him to brief privately the hon. Member for Croydon Central as soon as possible.
It is worth mentioning that the Chinese activity in this area is not confined to the United Kingdom. We are aware of approximately 100 alleged stations of the kind we are discussing around the world—they are not unique to the United Kingdom—and, as the shadow Home Secretary said, earlier this week arrests were made in New York in connection to an investigation conducted by the FBI similar to the investigations that we are conducting.
On party politics, all political parties need to be alert to the danger of representatives of hostile states seeking to infiltrate or influence their activities. It is fair to say that other Members of this House have been similarly targeted—those we know about—so I ask all Members of Parliament and all political parties to be alert to that risk. We all owe that to democracy.

Iain Duncan Smith: May I bring my right hon. Friend back to the real issue? Investigations into individual transgressions are absolutely fine, and they progress. The problem is that we in this House and the Government have known for a considerable time—it has been raised by many of my colleagues—about the activity of the three illegal Chinese police stations. We know that they are bringing Chinese dissidents in, confronting them with videos of their families, and threatening their families in front of them if they do not co-operate, leave and go back to China. We know that. The security services have warned the Government about it. The question today is this: why in heaven’s name have we not acted, alongside the Americans and even the Dutch, to shut those stations down and kick those people out of the country?

Chris Philp: I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for his long-standing campaigning on this issue and the activities of China more widely, which are rightly of great concern to this Government and to Members on both sides of the House. The activity that he describes—interference with Chinese nationals in this country—is something that we take incredibly seriously. We saw that terrible incident in Manchester not very long ago, where members of the Chinese consular staff dragged someone inside their compound. As a consequence of that, six Chinese officials have now left the United Kingdom.
The activity that my right hon. Friend describes is incredibly serious and unacceptable, and it must and will be stopped, but the three particular locations that he referred to are subject to a live investigation and work by the law enforcement community, so I am afraid that I cannot say any more from the Dispatch Box today. As soon as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Security can provide an update, he will do so.

Lindsay Hoyle: We come to the SNP spokesperson.

Alison Thewliss: The Scottish National party welcomes the inclusion of a stand-alone China section in the integrated review 2023. I agree with the Minister that we must take this threat seriously, and the Government should be giving as much, if not more, attention to the influence of Chinese state actors as they do to that of Putin’s oligarchs.
This is not the first time that this issue has been raised in this House, so can the Minister provide any update at all on the secret Chinese state police stations? Can he assure us that he is not just waiting for the National Security Bill to go through before taking action? Can he reassure me that he or, perhaps more appropriately, the Security Minister has had communications with counterparts in the Scottish Government and Police Scotland? Given that one of these alleged secret police stations is in my Glasgow Central constituency, may I have an update from Ministers on the situation? The Security Minister has in the past given me a verbal promise of an update, but I have not had one. He is not here today to address that, and I do not want to put the Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire on the spot, but I am very concerned about that.
What reassurance can the Minister provide to Scotland’s Chinese community, some of whom may have good reason to fear Chinese state interference and the secret police, who may be operating here? Can he reassure us that action is forthcoming, because it does not feel as though terribly much has been taken thus far?

Chris Philp: First, I will, on the Security Minister’s behalf, recommit him to meeting the hon. Lady, along with the hon. Member for Croydon Central (Sarah Jones). Given that one of these locations is in the constituency of the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss), it is important that the Security Minister meets her to discuss it. On his behalf, I make that commitment. I will talk to him later today and reiterate the importance of that meeting taking place, for all the reasons given by the hon. Lady.
I completely agree with the hon. Lady that this kind of activity—intimidation, or potential intimidation, of foreign nationals on our soil, whether by people acting for parts of the Chinese state or, indeed, other states, because we have seen this with other countries as well, with Iran being an obvious example—is completely unacceptable. We have zero tolerance for this kind of activity. It is under active investigation. It is not true to say that no action has been taken. In relation to these particular sites, action is currently being taken, but Members will understand why I cannot go into the details of that work at the moment.
I reassure the House that action can and will be taken under the law as it stands, but the National Security Bill updates and increases the powers available to us. For example, it requires registration and gives us more power to act against people who are acting on behalf of foreign states. I encourage all Members, including those in the other place, to support that Bill so that we can get it through Parliament and on to the statute book as fast as possible, because those extra powers will help us in this area.

Mark Pritchard: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the National Security Bill will make this country safer against state threats and, indeed,  make political dissidents in this country—North Korean, Russian and Chinese—safer as well. Does he agree that national security should not be a party political football and that, by definition, ongoing cases should not be discussed in this House, particularly when they have classified elements?

Chris Philp: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Matters of national security should be tackled on a bipartisan, or tripartisan, basis across the House. All democratic political parties in the wider western world, including the United Kingdom, are at risk from inappropriate influence. All of us must work together to combat and exclude that risk, and we should approach these issues in that spirit of cross-party co-operation.

Sarah Jones: I am perplexed, and my constituents are very concerned. At the start of November, the Security Minister said in response to an urgent question that there was an investigation and that he would come back to the House as soon as possible to provide a report. He promised to meet me. I have emailed him multiple times and have even texted him, but I have had nothing in response, and now we read that the man in Croydon has links to both the Chinese Communist party and the Conservative party. Was the Security Minister’s failure to respond to me multiple times a discourtesy, or is there something else going on?

Chris Philp: That insinuation of party political influence is frankly a disgraceful slur. The hon. Lady is not doing Croydon residents a service by attempting to ask the question in the way that she just did. I do know, because I have asked him, that the Security Minister has never met or encountered the gentleman concerned. He does, however, owe the hon. Lady an update, as I said in response to the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and I will make sure that the Security Minister meets with both the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) extremely quickly to provide an update on this issue.

Mike Penning: As a former Police Minister myself, I think it is very important that Parliament stays out of an ongoing investigation—that is absolutely vital—but what I am particularly worried about is that, if we just kick these people out of the country and do not prosecute them and put them in British prisons, when they get back to China they will be given a medal, not the criminal prosecution in this country that they deserve. Can we make sure that if a criminal act has taken place, these people are prosecuted in this country, not just kicked out? The Chinese will love that, and they will give them medals and God knows what else.

Chris Philp: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right in the point he made at the beginning of his question, as a former Police Minister, about the importance of not commenting in this House on particularly sensitive live investigations that are being undertaken. I completely agree with his second point about the importance of prosecuting people domestically in the UK and, if they have committed a criminal offence here in the UK, making sure they serve a sentence here prior to getting kicked out. There needs to be a very clear deterrent,  making it clear to the people who are thinking about doing these things that it is unacceptable on our soil—we will not tolerate it.

Dan Jarvis: I was pleased to hear the Minister say that these are matters that should be addressed on a cross-party basis. The Security Minister, whom I hold in the highest regard, said that the defending democracy taskforce would be cross-party, something that was welcomed by the director general of MI5. Can I ask the Minister to confirm that that is still the case? If it is, presumably either the Minister and his Department or the Security Minister will be reaching out to our Front Benchers in the very near future.

Chris Philp: I certainly share the hon. Member’s sentiments about the cross-party nature of this issue. I will take that point back to my right hon. Friend the Security Minister and put it to him later today, as soon as he gets back from Northern Ireland.

Alicia Kearns: I am exasperated that, six months after I secured an urgent question on this issue, it is still true that there are four illegal police stations operating in the country that we know of—the one in Belfast seems to be missing from much of the reporting. There is no question that when we are vulnerable at home to Chinese transnational repression, we are weaker on the world stage. [Interruption.] I hope the Minister is listening; does he wish to respond already? This is a transnational crisis, and I have just met with Vahid Beheshti, who is on day 56 of hunger strike outside the Foreign Office because of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps failing to be proscribed, despite the promise to do so. When will the Home Office close the IRGC cut-outs operating in Maida Vale, Willesden and Manchester, as well as the at least four Chinese police operating stations? Other countries have acted, so why have we not?

Chris Philp: I assure my hon. Friend that I was listening extremely carefully to what she was saying. She asserted in her question that these locations are still operating. If I may say so, she is making an assumption in doing so—not an assumption that I am going to comment on, because it is a matter that is under live investigation, as she will appreciate. As soon as the Security Minister is able to comment on this matter, he will come to the House and do so.
As my hon. Friend will also appreciate, I cannot comment on the IRGC either, because as she knows, Ministers do not comment on matters around proscription that are being considered. What I can and will say is that this Government take interference with foreign nationals here—transnational intimidation—extremely seriously. It is completely unacceptable, and we will do whatever is necessary to stop it from happening.

Alistair Carmichael: Anybody who has the right to be here has the right to feel safe and secure in being here. In the past couple of years, to their credit, the Government have allowed in excess of 100,000 Hongkongers to move to this country, but we know that the intimidation and persecution has followed them. In universities up and down the country, they are shouted down, and they continue to be intimidated. These police stations are part of the infrastructure that  enables that. To borrow a phrase from the Foreign Secretary, is it not time that we should be pulling down the shutters on them?

Chris Philp: I completely agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said, particularly in relation to the British national overseas Hong Kong citizens who have come here. We have extended a very warm welcome to those people, who are at risk of repression in Hong Kong now because of the Chinese Communist party’s brutal repression of democratic freedoms and other freedoms there, which this Government abhor in the strongest terms. That is why we have offered refuge here to those people.
The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that foreign nationals residing in this country, regardless of their immigration status, should enjoy all the rights and freedoms around free speech and freedom from intimidation that we would expect any citizen of this country to enjoy. I agree with him: it is the duty of Government and the law enforcement services and agencies to ensure that those freedoms and rights are protected, including on campuses. I think the Department for Education is doing some work in that area. Where Chinese nationals are students at universities, they should be free from harassment and intimidation—the same applies, of course, to other groups of people, Jewish students being another obvious example. It is vital that university authorities take robust action to protect their students, whether Chinese, Jewish or from any other group, from any sort of intimidation on campuses, which is totally unacceptable.

Bob Seely: I thank the Minister for his robust line, and I thank Ministers for all the work they are trying to do. I think it is true to say that in the past 10, 15 or 20 years, collective Governments have been slow and naive in dealing with these more nuanced, politicised threats from Iran, Russia, China and so on.
I get the fact that the Government are making transnational repression illegal and that there is an ongoing police case, but the point has already been made: repression is already illegal in this country, and has been for centuries. People have the right to the freedoms of this nation, whether they are visitors or citizens. We know who these diplomats are, and we are not going to be imprisoning Chinese diplomats, so we do not have to wait for a court case before we start expelling diplomats who are engaged in these practices. I think that is the point that I and others are trying to make today.

Chris Philp: There is no reluctance to ensure that diplomats engaged in inappropriate activity will leave: as I have mentioned already, six officials who were based in the Chinese consular office in Manchester have now left the United Kingdom. The gentleman in Croydon, the subject of the article in The Times today, is of course not a diplomat and is therefore susceptible to prosecution in the normal way, exactly as the former Police Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Sir Mike Penning), described earlier. That is exactly why there is an ongoing investigation that is taking place.

Catherine West: What specific measures will higher education institutions be encouraged to take, or if necessary what legislation will be put in place, to protect BNO passport holders particularly, but also young Iranian, Russian and Ukrainian students who feel under surveillance, and others within the student body who are there under a surveillance pact? We know this has been happening for quite some time, and the Government’s response has been tardy. Will the Minister undertake today to meet with the Higher Education Minister, the right hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), and to share immediate advice following today’s news, so that we can have a reassurance that all international students are safe?

Chris Philp: I completely agree with the hon. Lady’s sentiment that international students—indeed, any students—at UK universities should be free from intimidation, a point I made in response to a previous question. Whether those are Chinese students, Iranian students, Jewish students or anyone else, they should not be getting intimidated. I will just repeat the point I made earlier: individual universities, first and foremost, should be ensuring the safety of students on their campuses in the first instance.
In relation to the hon. Lady’s question about action by the DFE, as Members will appreciate, I am already straying quite a long way beyond the limits of my ministerial responsibility by answering this question; going into DFE areas would take me even further beyond them. What I will say is that I will ask the Security Minister to come back to the hon. Lady specifically on that point and update her in writing on what work he is doing with the DFE to ensure the safety of students on campuses. It is a vital question, and it is appropriate that the Government get involved as well as leaving it to universities. I will ask the Security Minister to come back to her on that very important point, but I completely agree with the sentiment of her question.

Simon Clarke: These illegal police stations form part of a pattern, whereby China is an adversary of freedom the world over. We saw that recently over her intimidation of Taiwan, we see it in her treatment of Hongkongers, and we see it in her actions in Africa to try to act through debt bondage to secure advantage on that continent. When will the Government designate China, as we should, as a formal threat to the interests of the United Kingdom in our security architecture?

Chris Philp: I agree with the thrust of my right hon. Friend’s thesis. Clearly, the Chinese Communist party is seeking to project its influence around the world, in a way that often undermines the interests of the recipients of that interest and often undermines the interests of those countries that believe in freedom and democracy. I believe we have a duty in this country, acting with our allies in the free world, to make sure that that influence is circumscribed.
Clearly, we are taking more powers domestically, for example through the National Security and Investment Act 2021, which came into force just over one year ago, to seek to limit influences in the investment and economic spheres. We are doing work with partners around the world, too. We are supporting countries where freedom  is threatened, including Taiwan, which obviously we strongly support in its right to choose its own destiny. The question my right hon. Friend specifically raises is obviously a complicated one that is probably better dealt with by higher powers than me, but I have made clear in my answer my feelings on the topic of our relations with China.

Emma Hardy: On how many occasions have the Government or governmental officials discussed the use of these police stations with the Chinese embassy?

Chris Philp: I am afraid that, not being a Foreign Office Minister or the Security Minister, I do not know. However, I am sure that the Security Minister will provide an update on that when he next comes to the House.

Heather Wheeler: I thank the Minister for his answers today. This is a difficult area, and he is constrained because of the ongoing investigation, but can he reassure me that the authorities doing all these investigations have all the resources they need, because that will be reassuring to the people of South Derbyshire?

Chris Philp: Yes, I can provide my hon. Friend with the assurance she requires. The Government take this issue incredibly seriously. We do not think the operation of these facilities is remotely acceptable, and neither is the intimidation of foreign nationals on our soil, so the relevant law enforcement bodies have the resources necessary to protect people on British soil, as she and this House rightly expect.

Taiwo Owatemi: Last month, Coventry hosted a friendship festival to welcome Hong Kong nationals under the BNO scheme. I am proud of the city’s diversity, but the existence of Chinese police stations poses a direct threat to my constituents. The Government’s own Back Benchers have said that this Government are asleep at the wheel when it comes to the threats posed by China. Given that this is a matter of national security, what steps will the Minister take to ensure the safety of my constituents in Coventry North West?

Chris Philp: I do not accept the suggestion that the Government have been asleep at the wheel. A whole range of actions are being taken to counter foreign state threats. I have mentioned the National Security and Investment Act 2021; the National Security Bill; the integrated review, which puts national security at its heart; and the defending democracy taskforce, which is chaired by the Security Minister. Those are all designed to keep safe not just BNOs, but others.
On the topic of BNOs, I think that illustrates the United Kingdom at its best. We sometimes hear Opposition Members saying that we do not have safe and legal routes, and that we do not extend a warm welcome. However, we have welcomed more than 100,000 with BNO passports with open arms. We have welcomed 25,000 people from Afghanistan via safe and legal routes. There are the 25,000 who came from Syria under the UK resettlement scheme and other schemes, and the more than 200,000 people who have come from Ukraine.  They all illustrate what an open and welcoming country this is and the approach that this Government take to genuine and legitimate refugees.

Henry Smith: It is not just nefarious activity from the Chinese Communist party through the so-called police stations in this country and other parts of the world, but their commercial activities and activities in academia that are a threat to our national security. BGI is a company that is harvesting genomic information from people around the world, for example through prenatal tests. Can I have an assurance from the Government that the defending democracy taskforce will be looking not just at the so-called Chinese police stations operating in this country, but all those aggressive acts being carried out by the Communist Chinese state?

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to draw attention to what the Chinese Government are doing in seeking to infiltrate academia and certain sensitive technologies. I saw that at first hand during my time as technology Minister, and I must say to the House that I was deeply concerned by what I saw. The machinery of government for dealing with that is the defending democracy taskforce, and there are various other arms of government dealing with that. The powers that exist under the National Security and Investment Act 2021 give the Government—in the first instance, I think it is through what used to be the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy—powers to take action. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are alive to that, and I saw that when I was tech Minister. I can assure him that the Government are vigilant and alert and that action is being taken.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister for his responses. What steps are being taken to secure the safety of Chinese expats who are frightened of the reach of the Chinese Government’s arms in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland? I have some constituents who are Chinese expats who have told me that they feel they have been followed. They are pretty sure that their phones have been tapped. What assurance can I give to my Chinese constituents about their privacy, security and safety?

Chris Philp: I appreciate the hon. Member’s question. If he is aware of cases where constituents feel that they are being in any way targeted, I strongly urge him and his constituents to contact the police, which I guess would be the Police Service of Northern Ireland in the first instance. The PSNI can then escalate the matter if required. Please report that quickly, and I would say that to any Member of this House. I can assure him that those matters will be quickly investigated and action taken.

Saqib Bhatti: My constituency has become home to many people from Hong Kong. Can the Minister reassure my constituents that we take our moral duty to protect political dissidents seriously and that they should be free from harassment on any inch of UK soil? By that, I do not just mean Chinese police stations, but also IRGC cut-outs.

Chris Philp: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. It is a long-standing principle in this country that we will ensure the freedoms and rights of  all those who reside on our soil. We will protect them from threats to their freedom by whoever might perpetrate them, including, and perhaps even especially, foreign states. He makes an important point, and he is right to make it.

Michael Fabricant: I thank the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) for tabling this urgent question, although I doubt whether the Chinese community will be thanking her after she made her cheap political point, which rather spoiled the questions she was asking. My right hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that, with regard to foreign actors, it is not just China that is active in this country, but Iran. What does he think he can do to protect journalists who correctly seek to criticise not only the regime in China, but what is happening in Tehran and the rest of Iran?

Chris Philp: First, I associate myself with the comment my hon. Friend made at the beginning of his question. In relation to press freedom, it is a long-standing, centuries-old principle in this country that the press is free and should be free from interference, including by foreign states, and that includes Iran. I suspect we are working closely with the Iranian media outlet that was shockingly, shamefully and disgracefully targeted by the Iranian regime, to ensure that it can and will continue to operate from UK soil, as it is perfectly entitled to do.

Infected Blood Inquiry Update

Jeremy Quin: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement to update the House on the infected blood inquiry.
The Government welcome the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report, and I would like to thank Sir Brian Langstaff and all those who have contributed. The infected blood inquiry has done a huge amount of work on an intensely complex issue, ensuring that victims’ voices are heard. I have been deeply moved by the testimonies outlined in the latest report, and the victims’ bravery in coming forward should not be overlooked.
The issuing of a second interim report specifically on compensation was not anticipated by the Government until we were informed of it by the inquiry in February this year. However, we very much appreciate and welcome Sir Brian taking this approach. The Government are considering intensely the recommendations outlined in this report, and work is under way at pace across all relevant Departments to respond fully.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) announced the infected blood inquiry in 2017 to examine the circumstances that led to individuals being given contaminated blood and blood products in the UK. The inquiry, chaired by Sir Brian Langstaff, commenced on 2 July 2018, and I would like to reiterate our total endorsement of my right hon. Friend’s point that the
“contaminated blood scandal of the 1970s and 80s…should simply never have happened.”
In tandem with the ongoing inquiry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Penny Mordaunt), then Paymaster General, commissioned Sir Robert Francis KC to produce a compensation framework study in anticipation of a recommendation from the inquiry to set up a compensation scheme. The findings of this study were published in June 2022.
Shortly after that, in July 2022, Sir Brian published his first interim report of the infected blood inquiry. In his report, Sir Brian recommended that the Government make interim payments to infected individuals and their bereaved partners. The Government accepted this recommendation in full on 17 August 2022, and interim compensation payments of £100,000 have been paid to those infected individuals and their bereaved partners registered with existing support schemes.
As I said to the House in December:
“We have much to do, but I wish to assure the House…that this is a priority for the Government and we will continue to progress it.”—[Official Report, 15 December 2022; Vol. 724, c. 1251.]
I would like to assure the House that this commitment absolutely remains.
Sir Brian’s most recent report sets out what the inquiry recommends as an appropriate means of compensating both those infected and affected, and the mechanism for delivering that compensation. In doing so, it sets out the complexity of what is a multi-layered issue. The recommendations in his report outline that those infected and affected should be granted legal support, and infected and affected people and the estates of infected people  should be able to claim for categories of loss against five awards: injury impact award, social impact award, autonomy award, care award and financial loss award. This is rather than claiming on an individual assessment of each application. In addition, those dissatisfied with their compensation payments should have redress through an appeal to a structure outside the compensation scheme.
The report has also proposed mechanisms that Sir Brian thinks will ensure the fairness of the compensation scheme. He has recommended that the scheme be administered by an arm’s length body, chaired by a High Court judge or equivalent, and advised by legal and medical professionals, as well as the beneficiaries of the scheme. In addition, Sir Brian has proposed that the route through the courts should still remain open to beneficiaries.
Sir Brian has agreed with much of Sir Robert’s study, but there are also differences in approach. For example, Sir Robert outlined in his study that the scheme should be delivered locally in each of the four nations as this was the preference of the victims. Sir Brian has recommended that the scheme be delivered by a central body, while continuing the support provided by the existing infected blood support schemes, which should be continued and guaranteed for life
“by legislation or secure government undertaking”.
There is also divergence in the consideration of scope of those eligible for compensation payments, including the extension of payments to those with hepatitis B, and not providing payments to the estates of those affected.
Sir Brian’s interim report is detailed, and it is only right that the Government will need to consider the complexities it sets out thoroughly when preparing our response. The House will recognise that health is a devolved matter, and I will be discussing the report with my colleagues in the devolved Administrations.
As I said at the start of my statement, the Government welcome the publication of the infected blood inquiry’s second interim report to assist its ongoing work. However, we do not underestimate the complexity of these recommendations, which do need careful consideration. For example, Sir Brian recommends an arm’s length body in which His Majesty’s Government would have no ongoing role beyond providing taxpayer funds as required by the body. On anything like this scale, this would be a new departure, and it does have implications for Government accountability that will need careful consideration alongside how its financial implications will be managed.
However, I would like to reassure the House that while the Government are progressing work to ensure that we are in the best possible position to respond fully at the end of the inquiry, every recommendation by Sir Brian, including in relation to timing and a further interim payment, is receiving intense focus.
My colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care are aware of issues that Sir Brian has raised in relation to psychological support. Under the current psychological support scheme for England, there is provision for a grant of up to £900 a year, for established beneficiaries and family members, for counselling and talking therapy. The Department of Health and Social Care is undertaking research to look at the psychological support needs so that decisions on commissioning a bespoke service are based on robust evidence and meet the requirement.
In closing, I would like to reiterate the need for pace. People die every week as a result of the impact of the scandal. This Government want to deliver resolution, and we are working at pace across all relevant Departments to consider the recommendations as outlined in this latest report and to ensure that we are best placed to respond to the inquiry’s final report. I commend this statement to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call the shadow Minister.

Fleur Anderson: I thank the Paymaster General for providing an advance copy of his statement. I would like to begin by paying tribute to the brave victims and their families, who, while working through their own personal ill health, grief and trauma, have campaigned tirelessly for justice—without their strength, we would not have reached this stage—and of course to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), who has been a stalwart of the campaign.
The continued work of the infected blood inquiry is crucial to ensuring that victims’ voices are heard. I had the privilege of meeting victims of this scandal last month, and their stories will stay with me forever. No one should have to experience the pain and anguish they have faced and are still facing. Justice delayed and its continuing delay is justice denied. While we await the conclusion of the report and inquiry, those who were given contaminated blood products are dying at a rate of one every four days. Families have suffered decades of health issues, financial loss and stigma.
Victims—those affected and infected—will have watched the Minister’s statement today with heavy hearts, disappointment and some degree of anger. There seems to be no commitment from the Minister to respond to the second report until the final report is published in the autumn. The interim report was published so that the Government do not have to wait until the final report to take action. We all understand the complexities of this scandal, but I hope the Minister can see that many individuals directly affected still feel angry and unrecognised. Today’s statement does not provide any certainty for the families or children of victims.
To finish, I have five questions for the Minister. First, does he agree with Sir Brian’s statement in the interim report that
“Time without redress is harmful. No time must be wasted in delivering that redress”?
Can he confirm that the “intense focus” he talked about is to achieve the recommendation in the report that the scheme is
“set up now and…should begin work this year”?
Secondly, how can he provide more reassurance to family members of victims, including parents who lost children and children who were orphaned when their parents died?
Thirdly, the Paymaster General talked about work under way. If the Government plan to accept these interim findings, officials must start verifying and registering directly affected people and their families urgently to understand the size of the group and to speed up the payments. Can he confirm whether that is already taking place? Fourthly, will he commit to more regular updates  on progress and the direction of travel on this issue ahead of the inquiry’s final report later this year? We should not have to keep squeezing this information out of the Government, because it compounds the pain of the victims.
Finally, will the Paymaster General agree to meet me and the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), so that we can work together to deliver the justice the victims deserve?

Jeremy Quin: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks. She was right to pay tribute to many MPs in the House, including the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) who have campaigned tirelessly on this issue over a long time. I am grateful for the work of the all-party group on haemophilia and contaminated blood, and some members of the media have also been at the forefront of pushing this issue for a long time.
Above all, the hon. Lady is right to refer to the victims, and I am very conscious that there will be tens of thousands of people watching this statement who are desperate to see a resolution. Every time there is another iteration, or a cause for me to be in this place, it is a source of anxiety, concern and worry. I am sure that there is disappointment every time there is another statement and we do not have the final resolution, but we have travelled a long way. This inquiry was announced six years ago, and Sir Brian started work five years ago. I am very grateful to him for producing this interim report. A lot of it is similar to the report by Sir Robert Francis, but there are differences.
We do need to do the work, and on the points the hon. Lady raised, we have been focused on ensuring that at the conclusion of Sir Brian’s inquiry, we are able to come forward in the best place possible, but that does not preclude doing something earlier if we are able and have the means to do so. Registration is not as yet taking place, but I am mindful that whereas for the previous interim payment there was a defined set of people and bereaved partners, if this recommendation is to be taken forward it will require registration, and that inevitably takes time, as we are all aware.
Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that this statement is no more than an update. I was keen to come to the House to hear the views of hon. Members, and I commit to doing so again as appropriate and as we continue through this process. Work will continue, and of course it would be a pleasure to meet the hon. Lady and the shadow Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster if they would like to discuss this matter.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee.

Steve Brine: In his second interim report, Sir Brian Langstaff makes it clear that the Government have everything they need to implement the compensation framework now. I repeat the pertinent quote that the shadow Minister pulled out from the report:
“Time without redress is harmful.”
I suggest that that is rather underplaying it. During “time without redress”, people are passing away. Currently, the infected blood support schemes make regular ex gratia payments to those who are affected and bereaved partners. Will the Government make that provision statutory?

Jeremy Quin: I do not dispute for a second Sir Brian’s comment that time without redress is harmful, to which my hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Putney (Fleur Anderson) referred. We want progress, which is why we are working at pace to deliver it. Sir Brian makes a specific recommendation that the ongoing ex gratia payments should be put on a statutory basis, or receive a similarly strong Government commitment. I am not in a position to respond to recommendations today. It has been eight working days since the report landed, but all the recommendations will be taken seriously.

Rosie Winterton: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Martyn Day: May I put on record my gratitude for advance sight of the statement, and for the work of the infected blood inquiry? I suspect there will be a considerable amount of consensus in the House on this issue. Over the years, I have been appalled at the personal testimony that I have heard from my constituents about 40 years of struggle, and the realisation that this scandal could have affected any one of us. It is a tragedy that simply should never have happened, and it has been made worse by decades of delay, first in preventing further use of contaminated factor products and identifying victims, and then in delivering compensation.
As we know, the infected blood scandal took place before devolution, while healthcare in Scotland was the responsibility of the UK Government. Financial powers to deliver compensation still lie with Westminster. It is therefore entirely appropriate to have a scheme delivered by a central body, as recommended by the inquiry. Over the years, too many delays and denials have impacted victims and their families. Sir Brian Langstaff is spot on when he says in the interim report—we have heard this a couple of times already, but I make no apology for repeating it—that:
“Time without redress is harmful. No time must be wasted in delivering that redress.”
It is therefore imperative that the recommendations to widen the interim compensation payments are carried out, and that should be done before the final compensation scheme is set up. Will the UK Government accept the inquiry’s recommendation that interim compensation payments are widened and delivered without delay? Finally, when will the compensation system’s independent chair be appointed, and can we have a detailed timescale for that?

Jeremy Quin: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and for his welcome for the concept of a central body. That was not an area of dispute, but there was a slightly difference emphasis in Sir Robert’s report and Sir Brian’s report regarding whether the payments should be delivered locally through each of the four schemes or through a UK scheme. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that this happened in the ’70s and ’80s, long before devolution, and there is a clear recommendation from Sir Brian, which I am glad he endorses.
The hon. Gentleman raises two points about the interim compensation payment being widened and there being no delay in its implementation, and about the appointment of individuals. This all depends on the Government’s response to each of the recommendations—he will accept that—but a number of things could be done to speed up the process. If we were to agree with Sir Brian’s recommendation to have an arm’s length body, there are mechanisms whereby individuals could be appointed on an interim basis, prior to the ALB being formally constituted. All that is in the mix as we work through our response to the report.

Rosie Winterton: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: The main views from the all-party group will come from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), but we recognise that a great deal of work needs to go into this. As a minimum, may I put to the Minister that he should come back to the House before the summer break to say how far the Government have got in considering the recommendations, and which ones they will accept?
Will he set up a register so that those who think they have claims can put their names forward and be able to receive updates from the Government directly, rather than just through the mainstream media?
The words of former Secretaries of State for Health, that the totality has been a failure by the British state and that the pain and suffering has gone on for far too long, are endorsed across the House and by the country as a whole. We want the action that Sir Brian Langstaff has asked for, which is that the scheme should be set up this year.

Jeremy Quin: I thank my hon. Friend for recognising that there is a great deal of work to be done. I have already referred to the point about the register. Were we to adopt the clear recommendation from Sir Brian about an interim payment that goes more widely than the last scheme, that would require a registration scheme. I appreciate that that would take time, and it needs to be established at an early stage if that recommendation is accepted. I will return to update the House as appropriate, which I hope will certainly be before the summer break.

Diana R. Johnson: I thank the Minister for his statement, but really, after thousands have died, decades of campaigning, a five-year public inquiry with more than 500 people dying during that period, a review of compensation frameworks by Sir Robert Francis which was delivered to the Government last February, a first interim report from Sir Brian Langstaff, and now a second interim report from Sir Brian Langstaff setting out the clear case for compensation, enough is enough. Sir Brian Langstaff is clear in his report that the scheme need not await the final report to begin work. He states:
“It will clearly take political will to act quickly but the circumstances here warrant it,”.
Will the Minister explain to me, and to the thousands of people who will be watching this statement, what exactly is the problem? Why is there not the political will from this Government to deliver justice to this group of people?

Jeremy Quin: The right hon. Lady has been a constant and incredibly effective champion for those affected and infected. It was about time, but it was this Government who instituted this inquiry. We have made a huge amount of progress in having an inquiry, and in having clear recommendations on compensation from Sir Brian. We want to act at pace and we want to act swiftly, but it is also vital that this is done properly. There is a huge amount of work. The nature of the report and the recommendations Sir Brian makes are unprecedented for an unprecedented circumstance, but that requires detailed work and detailed analysis. We will bring forward a response as soon as we can. As I say, we are focused on the inquiry’s conclusion, but that does not preclude coming forward before then if we are able to do so and we decide that that is the right course of action.

Matthew Hancock: I add my voice to those thanking Sir Brian Langstaff and the whole team for the work they have done. We all recognise the complexities of delivering a scheme that is effective. I am grateful to the Minister for repeatedly coming to this House and for committing to come to the House again, but will he repeat from the Dispatch Box the moral case for compensation, which has effectively bound the Government to act and to follow the recommendations for compensation? Of course it takes time to put that into practice, but what is vital for people to hear today is that, in principle, the Government are going to make it happen. For many years that commitment was not there and it needs to be repeated now.

Jeremy Quin: My right hon. Friend speaks with a great deal of knowledge on this subject. I am very grateful—I repeat this, as did he—to Sir Brian for producing a comprehensive and thorough appraisal of what the compensation scheme should look like, but we need to go through it in detail. As my right hon. Friend would accept, it needs to be effective and it needs to work, but I am pleased that he has given me the opportunity to reiterate what I said last December in this place: we fully accept that there is a moral case for compensation in this circumstance, absolutely.

Philippa Whitford: As I said in the debate in 2017, I remember, as a young surgeon, when this scandal began to break in the early ’80s. That is 40 years ago. My entire medical career has passed while people have been fighting for justice and recognition. Dragging that out has added financial hardship to the suffering people were already going through. As the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) said, enough is enough. The Minister talked about how long things will take and we recognise that, but when will they start? When will registration of bereaved parents and children start? When will the framework actually start, so that, as Sir Brian Langstaff called for, people can expect to see action this year and not wait any longer?

Jeremy Quin: The hon. Lady is very clear, as is Sir Brian in his report. There is no dispute over what Sir Brian is recommending. I cannot give that commitment now. There are processes across Government, as she will understand. We are working at pace and we are going through the report in great detail. As I say, it has been a short period of time since that report landed with all of  us. It is detailed, it is comprehensive and it does need work, but we will be coming back to the hon. Lady and to this House.

Mike Penning: My first portfolio as a shadow Minister, in 2006, was health, so I met many of the victims. The situation started in the ’80s, but we did not really know until the ’90s what was creating it—I am no expert, but that is what was coming forward—so I am very proud that the Government have done something that I promised we would do for the victims, but it has taken too long. The moral position is that the victims and their loved ones are still suffering. People have lost their loved ones. It is not just a financial issue; it has broken people’s hearts and minds. Their scepticism might be fuelled by the fact that the Government initiated an inquiry by Baroness Cumberlege into the Primodos debacle and disaster, but they literally ignored their own inquiry, so can the Minister understand the concerns of victims and Members who are a little bit sceptical about delay, delay, delay?

Jeremy Quin: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. This has been a long, long-term scandal. It started in the ’70s and ’80s, and it has taken many, many years to get to this stage. But the stage we have got to now is that a very distinguished High Court judge has spent five years working through the circumstances. He is at an advanced stage with his inquiry and has produced a thorough report on compensation. As I said to the House and say again, the moral case for compensation is fully accepted by the Government. We need to go through it to work through exactly what the implications are—they are multiple. As I said before, this is an unprecedented circumstance which requires unprecedented means of address and that is what is reflected in the report, but it does require work to go through it.

Clive Efford: We had the report set out by Sir Brian Langstaff, which says how the compensation should be delivered and the framework for delivering it. The Minister said that the Government are considering this recent report “at pace”. He also said that he wants to come back and update the House. If we are moving at pace and we have all the detail in place that we need, when will he come back to the House?

Jeremy Quin: It will be a great pleasure to return to the House with more substance when I can. It is important, even though we received the comprehensive report only eight working days ago, to give Members an opportunity to share their views on that interim report at the earliest possible opportunity, but the hon. Gentleman will realise that it does require work to come back substantively to say which recommendations are being accepted and how we will be progressing them.

James Morris: I welcome the Minister’s statement, but does he agree that, notwithstanding the complexity he outlined in relation to the compensation scheme, two things should happen? First, the Government should move urgently to the design of the compensation scheme. Secondly, in the design of the compensation scheme, there should be  engagement with victims or the groups representing them to ensure alignment between the compensation scheme and the expectation of victims.

Jeremy Quin: I totally understand where my hon. Friend is coming from. It is critical that the answers we produce in response to the report are readily understood and have the buy-in of all those who suffered so grievously as a result of these scandals. I am very keen to engage with the victims. Sir Brian has been doing an exceptional job in ensuring that he fully understands, listens to and takes on board the comments made by the victims and engages with them. It is, I think, impossible for any of us who have not suffered from this personally to understand fully the anguish the victims have been put through. Sir Brian has done his utmost to reflect that in the report he has produced.

Christine Jardine: I, too, would like to thank the Minister for coming here today, and pay tribute to Sir Brian for the work he has done. Not long after I was first elected in 2017, I received a letter from a constituent whose family had suffered as a result of the infected blood scandal. What they have been through is heartbreaking. Although progress has been made and we have the interim report, we are now six years further on and they are no further on in receiving compensation. As others have said today, can we please get on with it and ensure that the suffering of families is put to an end?

Jeremy Quin: I totally understand where the hon. Lady is coming from. We all have constituents in that situation. There are tens of thousands of people who are affected across the whole of the UK. We want to do so at pace. Any scheme we adopt must be effective, must work and must be appropriate. There is work ongoing. We will get there and report back to the House on our response to Sir Brian’s recommendations.

Mark Pritchard: I welcome the Minister’s intense focus on this matter, but I join Members from across the House—not on a personal basis, because I think the Minister is one of the best in the Government—on behalf of my constituents in saying that this has taken a long time. Of course, it has to be thorough—I put on record my thanks to Sir Brian and Sir Robert—but can the Minister assure the House that their difference of opinion on how the compensation may be delivered, whether nationally or through the devolved Administrations, will not cause further delay? Post the final report being published, can he reassure the House that there will not then be a further consultation on whether it is devolved or national?
On children affected who have lost their loved ones and parents, could there be quicker interim payments? Some of them are really suffering financially, let alone from the loss of their parents. On the five categories, the Minister mentioned social impact; clearly, the loss of a parent is the biggest social impact of all.

Jeremy Quin: Let me reassure my hon. Friend that although I referred in my statement to areas where Sir Robert and Sir Brian presented different nuances and views, I would not wish that to be overstated. Sir Brian had the benefit of Sir Robert’s report; I think he would say that he found it extremely useful that that study was undertaken, to enable him to consider Sir Robert’s report when coming up with his own recommendations.  We must not allow any difference between the two—mainly of nuance—to get in the way of our proper and full consideration of Sir Brian’s report.
My hon. Friend referred to interim payments, as did other hon. Members. All I can say is that there is a clear recommendation from Sir Brian. We are working through all that, and we will return to the House in due course, having had an opportunity to review fully those recommendations.

Barbara Keeley: My constituent’s father died following an infected factor VIII treatment. The family did not feel that they could grieve openly because of the stigma around HIV and AIDS at the time of his death. My constituent has told me that although a compensation payment would not bring back their father, it would finally give the family a sense of closure. Does the Minister accept the symbolic importance of compensation payments? Will the Government now commit to including children who have lost a parent in the scope of the compensation scheme, as recommended by Sir Brian Langstaff?

Jeremy Quin: One of the worst of the many dreadful aspects of the scandal is the stigma to which the hon. Lady refers. For a child to go through the circumstances of parents being extremely ill and worried about the stigma and moving house, school or work, is deeply shocking to read now, and in many cases we are 20, 30, or 40 years on from the circumstances. These people went through absolute hell, with the stigma laid on top of dreadful circumstances. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for reminding us of that. I am afraid that I am not in a position to make piecemeal comments on Sir Brian’s recommendation. As I have said, it was vital that he produced the report—a comprehensive report that we need to go through thoroughly, and it is important that we produce our response in due course when we have had a chance to do so.

Kevin Foster: The length of the scandal can be summed up by the fact that my predecessor spent 18 years pursuing cases, and I have spent the last eight years pursuing the same cases, to try to bring them to resolution. The Minister rightly says that there is work to be done following the recommendations, but what timescale has he set to prepare a response? What work has been done to prepare for the potential recruitment of people to deal with cases via the structure proposed? I know from experience with another complex compensation scheme stretching over decades that that is far easier said than done.

Jeremy Quin: My hon. Friend raises a good point. Work was undertaken prior to the release of the second interim report, based on Sir Robert’s original study, which helps us considerably. We are now working at pace to go through the changes and what the Government’s stance will be overall. I will not say the timeline for that, but we are working at pace.
My hon. Friend raises a good point about recruitment: if an arm’s length body is the way forward, no time should be lost in finding a route for good people with expertise to be brought into the process prior to the formal establishment of an ALB, if that is the route we go down.

Drew Hendry: The gut-wrenching truth of the matter is that people are decaying and dying while this Government dither and delay. The people concerned in this scandal will have heard nothing new today from the Minister. For their benefit, so that they know he is fighting for them, can he confirm that the recommendations to widen the scope of the payment should be agreed? Will he fight for those compensation payments to be made this year to the people affected?

Jeremy Quin: It would be wrong to characterise the circumstance today as one of no progress. The fact that Sir Brian Langstaff has produced this report is a huge step forward. It is fantastic that he has come forward with a second interim report specifically on compensation. I speak on behalf of the Government and, on their behalf, I accepted the moral case for compensation back in December. We now need to go through what Sir Brian has written, which has been the culmination of many years of work, take decisions on that and come back to the House.

Jonathan Djanogly: I welcome the Government’s clear determination, as shown by the Minister today, to move faster towards a just resolution to this sad and terrible scandal. As an MP representing a Huntingdon family devastated by this affair, who were long concerned by the inability to engage with Ministers, will my right hon. Friend confirm that ongoing engagement with victims’ families will take place with proper understanding of their tragic plight?

Jeremy Quin: I can confirm that. Most of us in our constituency capacities have been aware of the victims of this dreadful scandal. Through the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and her APPG, I had the privilege of meeting representatives of those affected, and I am more than willing to do so again as we continue to progress our work.

Ian Lavery: The Minister is absolutely correct—tens of thousands of people are fixed to their televisions today, expecting a resolution to this inquiry. I will tell him why they are disappointed: because they do not have time on their side. Hundreds have already died and more are dying on a week-by-week basis. They do not have time on their side. We need to ensure that the Government respond fully to this report and set out a clear timetable on actions from the report. Remember, people are dying as the Government are dithering and delaying.

Jeremy Quin: The hon. Gentleman is right that, alas, the victims continue to die. Sir Brian makes a comment in his second interim report that we do not know the full scale of the medical impact of what went on in the ’70s and ’80s. Conditions are, in some cases, worsening. The point is well made. The hon. Gentleman says that we must respond fully—we must and we will do so when we have done the work required.

Damien Moore: On behalf of my constituents affected, I welcome the sensitivity with which the Government have been dealing with this situation. However, the lack of urgency is undermining the good will of victims and their families, and it is letting them down every single day. How long will it be  between accepting one of these points and implementing them? Would it not be easier to implement them now? Listening to Members today, I think that the best thing to do would be to implement them and work on getting the support to families as soon as possible.

Jeremy Quin: I can assure my hon. Friend that there is urgency in our response. The report was produced eight working days ago; we are working at pace to go through it and we will continue to do so. We need to determine our view on all the recommendations, but that does not necessarily preclude us taking individual steps between now and the conclusion of the inquiry, and we will continue to work.

Jessica Morden: Please do not delay any longer. The Minister will say that it is complicated, as he said at the last statement. The Government have known about this scandal for a long time and should have been preparing. Bereaved families such as the Smiths in my constituency, whose case has been waiting for 18 years, need interim payments now. Does the Minister really get that those who have waited years for justice and redress cannot afford to wait any longer?

Jeremy Quin: I am familiar with the hon. Lady’s constituency case, which she has raised many times. I am familiar with the sad story, which is one of so many around this House. I cannot add to what I have already said. I recognise the strength of feeling in the House and in the infected and affected communities. I am grateful that in Sir Brian’s report we have really thorough analysis for us to work through.

Chris Stephens: Does the Minister accept that the uncertainty of when the Government will fully respond to this report risks damaging people’s mental health? I am thinking about a number of constituents who have contacted me to say that there is a real impact on mental health. Can the Minister set out a timetable, or does he have a timetable in his head, for action? Does he accept the principle of making interim payments to bereaved parents and children, many of whom gave up their working careers or did not meet their educational and academic potential because of the years they spent caring for their loved ones?

Jeremy Quin: On the timetable, we are determined to be in the best possible place to respond to the inquiry when it concludes. As I have said to other hon. Members, that does not preclude us taking other steps earlier, if that is what we determine to do, as a Government. We are working at pace to go through all the implications of the report.
On the hon. Gentleman’s second point, he will appreciate why I cannot go through individual recommendations at this stage, but I recognise the extremely strong case that Sir Brian has made for a number of those who have been affected, including carers who have given up a great deal to support others.

Tulip Siddiq: One of my constituents contracted hepatitis C from a botched blood bag in the 1980s. Her daughter wrote to me last year:
“I am furious that you have grudgingly decided to pay interim compensation after she finally could fight no longer, seven weeks after she died…In the meantime, I’m left with grief and nothing else to show for all the misery.”
In addition to all the horrors that my constituent and her mother went through, the daughter is not eligible for compensation as she is not a bereaved partner. Does the Minister think that is fair?

Jeremy Quin: I am very sorry to hear about the loss of the hon. Lady’s constituent. It was a significant and positive step forward that the Government accepted in full Sir Brian’s recommendation about those infected and bereaved partners and brought forward the £100,000 of compensation, which was paid last October. It is tragic that, for the reasons stated earlier in relation to the scale of ongoing loss from this scandal, individuals will have missed out on that compensation because of their death between the announcement and the payment of the compensation. I really feel for the family of her constituent.
The hon. Lady referred to payments beyond the interim payments that were made last year. Sir Brian has made a very specific recommendation on that. We are not responding to that today, but it is one of the many recommendations that we are working through.

Alison Thewliss: My constituent’s father died in England in the late 1970s and she tells me that she is his only surviving next of kin. Will the Minister confirm when my constituent, and many others like her, will obtain the compensation that they are clearly due? What proof will be required to access it, given the notorious related scandal around medical records? Bereaved people in these circumstances do not need more barriers—they need compensation after all they have suffered.

Jeremy Quin: The hon. Lady raises an extremely good point about the evidence to be produced to access any future compensation scheme. There is a minor point of difference between the two reports by Sir Robert and Sir Brian in terms of the evidential test. However, given the history of records not being available and the length of time that has passed, Sir Brian has been clear that an appropriate approach must be taken and a compensation scheme must be established that does not preclude people who have no means of showing their eligibility because of factors completely beyond their control.

Holly Lynch: As many colleagues across the House have already said, the children of those lost as a consequence of the scandal feel particularly unseen and unheard in the progress that has been made so far. So can the Minister assure them that they will be a focus for the Government not only in recognising their loss but in delivering compensation payments to them through the scheme as a priority?

Jeremy Quin: As I said before, children are a particularly harrowing aspect of the scandal. Sir Brian has made specific recommendations. We are not responding to those recommendations today, but we are working through them and I assure the hon. Lady that we will continue to do so.

Patrick Grady: I express sympathy and solidarity with my constituents who have been affected. Does the Minister accept, as the questions are demonstrating, that the longer it takes to implement compensation, the more complicated that process will become, not least because the question of estates and surviving relatives will increasingly come into play? Do the Government recognise the need to confirm the individuals who are due compensation and pay them as quickly as possible?

Jeremy Quin: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that that is exactly the process we are going through. We are working through Sir Brian’s report and his specific recommendations, including about the eligibility of estates—he recommends that the estates of those infected should be included in any scheme. The hon. Gentleman is not wrong to say that these are all complicated risks which are becoming more complicated. We want to make certain that we make progress and come to a resolution in our consideration of the report.

Catherine West: When I entered this House, my young constituent was in the nursery and we all hoped the scandal would be resolved quickly. She then graduated to primary school, and now she is about to go into secondary school. The loss of her father to this terrible infected blood scandal was absolutely devastating. I have two questions. First, will she receive compensation? There seems to be a question about whether children will get compensation. Secondly, the psychological research looking at support needs is being done only now. After all these years, how can it be that the research about commissioning a bespoke service is beginning only now? Will he apologise for that delay?

Jeremy Quin: I cannot confirm the details of what will be in the compensation scheme when it comes forward, simply because that is the work we are undertaking now. I recognise the urgency represented by the hon. Lady.
In terms of the psychological needs, different progress has been made around the United Kingdom. There are schemes established in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and there is £900 available every year in England. Work is being undertaken now to ensure that there will be an appropriate tailored scheme. That work is ongoing and we expect to hear over the next few months what the answer will be on the psychological support scheme. That work is being conducted by ministerial colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care.

Hannah Bardell: I am afraid that it is simply not good enough. It is like groundhog day for our constituents who have been impacted by the contaminated blood scandal. When there has been so much time and so many reports, it is not good enough to come to the Dispatch Box with so little to say to constituents such as my constituents Vera Gaskin and Linda Cannon.
Linda emailed me last night:
“The consequences for me have been devastating. My life has been ruined beyond belief. I lost my husband of 37 years under horrendous circumstances which were hard to bear.”
Decades have gone by and nothing has been done. Of course we welcome the reports, but the Minister must not use them to hide behind and kick the can down the road for the victims. There is clearly cross-party support for taking interim measures, so why does he not get on and do that?

Jeremy Quin: The hon. Lady is absolutely right that this has been going on for decades. That is why it was vital that the inquiry was set up in 2017 by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead. This is a significant moment in the course of that inquiry: an interim report dealing specifically with compensation was delivered eight working days ago. It is extraordinarily important that that has been produced. It is a thorough report and we need to go through it.
I recognise the determination in all parts of the House to see a resolution to the matter. I also recognise the frustration of the hon. Lady, who I know is reflecting the frustrations of her constituents and many others, but it was only during the Easter recess that the report was delivered. We need to work through it, and we need to come back to the House when we have done that work.

Charlotte Nichols: Today’s statement is incredibly light on substance and actual commitments. There is no reason why the Government could not begin verifying and registering those affected in preparation for the publication of the final report and for the swift delivery of compensation. The Minister’s statement reiterates the need for pace, yet there is no commitment to even beginning that work, nor is there a vague timeline for when it might begin. At a time when victims are dying every week and we are in a sustained cost of living crisis, justice delayed is justice denied. Why are the Government causing further unnecessary delays with their inaction? Have the victims and their families not already suffered more than enough?

Jeremy Quin: I recognise the determination of the hon. Lady. In respect of the registration of those who may be eligible for a future compensation scheme, it is fair to say that they would have varied between the Sir Robert Francis study and the report produced by Sir Brian Langstaff. We need to do the work: we need to ensure that we have absolute clarity on the approach we are taking, ensure that that is announced and ensure that there is clarity for the victims. There will be no unnecessary delays, as the hon. Lady puts it; there is, however, a necessity to do the work to make certain that we have an effective, proper and appropriate response to what is a very thorough report.

Jamie Stone: I have a constituent called Brian Ross; I have his permission to use his name in this Chamber. His family have been known to mine for generations. He received contaminated blood in the 1980s and, like so many others, has been left susceptible to cancer. I have sat down with him and talked about the stress and the fear—the really black fear—that surround him and his family. For Brian Ross’s sake, may I ask the Minister to make sure that nothing impedes a scheme for him? We do not know how long he has got. In working with the victims and their legal representatives and with the devolved institutions, which the Minister mentioned, let us make sure that there is no glitch. Please do this, for Brian Ross’s sake.

Jeremy Quin: The hon. Gentleman speaks from the heart. I totally recognise the issues that he raises on behalf of his constituent, Mr Ross. I can only reiterate that we have come a long way. The inquiry was set up in 2017; we now have a thorough report that is specifically on compensation. That is a major step forward from where we were at any stage prior to eight days ago. We will do all the work and ensure that we come back with a proper, full and appropriate response.

Ruth Cadbury: My constituent’s son received infected blood in the ’80s. The trauma and cost for the family are incalculable, as many hon. Members have described today. Time is not on the side of many of these families. I ask the Paymaster General a specific question, because he seems to have avoided giving any specific facts about what is going to happen now: is it not unreasonable to have a compensation scheme up and running by the end of this year?

Jeremy Quin: That is what Sir Brian recommends. Sir Brian believes that it is possible to achieve that; we need to work through and produce our response to Sir Brian. I am not in a position as yet to confirm timings or what our response will be, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right: Sir Brian Langstaff recommends that we should be in a position to get a scheme in place by the end of the year. We need to do the work and come back to this House.

Stuart McDonald: First, may I argue in favour of the importance of the independence of the compensation scheme? Many people here, although perhaps not all, would argue that the Windrush compensation scheme, for example, was hindered by not being at arm’s length from the Home Office.
Secondly, in anticipation that the Government will accept the recommendations about the scope of the compensation scheme, will the Minister look to use information from the infected blood support schemes right now to start registering and verifying those who will qualify, to save time further down the line?

Jeremy Quin: As part of the work to which I have alluded, we are looking at a whole range of compensation schemes that come in different shapes and sizes. The  hon. Gentleman refers to Windrush; there has also been the armed forces compensation scheme from the Ministry of Defence, and there has been tribunal work. The solution of having an arm’s length body, wholly separate from the Government, to pay out the schemes is an innovative approach to an unprecedented issue. It would have the independence to which he refers, but would also have consequences in terms of accountability for expenditure. We are working through all those issues, which he is wise to raise.
On the point about registering potential beneficiaries, I believe that the current infected blood schemes were the basis for the interim payments made last year to those infected and to bereaved partners. Sir Brian is very clear in saying that to widen registration we would need a new scheme that goes further and recognises others who have been infected but who are not included in the infected blood scheme. The hon. Gentleman raises a good point.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Paymaster General very much for his statement. I especially commend the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for her dogged determination at every stage: every one of us whose constituents have suffered because of contaminated blood owes her many thanks. We thank her publicly in this Chamber today.
I am very pleased that, ahead of the final report,  the chairman has issued the recommendation that compensation be given. On compensation for health issues, the reality for many people is that each week that passes means worsening health and more care needed. Compensation would greatly enhance the quality of the end of life for some people who are coming to that stage. The Paymaster General is a Minister with compassion who understands the issue, so while we await the rest of the report, I respectfully ask him to consent to fast-tracking that recommendation, particularly for end-of-life claimants.

Jeremy Quin: I thank the hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members who have contributed today. He makes a powerful point, as he does so often, and the same point comes out from Sir Brian Langstaff’s report. We will do the work and will come back to this place having done so. Sir Brian is making a powerful case, but the work needs to be undertaken. We need to do that properly, and I look forward to coming back to the House in due course when we have made more progress.

Points of Order

Christopher Chope: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I seek your help? What can be done to force Ministers to honour commitments made to this House at the Dispatch Box?
On 24 March, during my Adjournment debate about covid-19 vaccine victims, the vaccines Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield), to whom I have given notice of this point of order—promised to come to an early meeting of the all-party parliamentary group on covid-19 vaccine damage. Despite exhaustive efforts, it has proved impossible to obtain any date from the Minister. We have offered any time, any place, but we cannot get any offer back from her or her Department.
Today I attended the inquest for one vaccine victim, Dr Stephen Wright, whose widow and mother heard the coroner confirm that Stephen’s death at the age of 32 was caused by the AstraZeneca vaccine. We heard earlier from the Paymaster General that the Government are very keen to hear the voices of victims. As it has now been more than six months since I have been trying to get Health Ministers to meet vaccine victims, the Paymaster General’s words do not ring very true.
This is just not good enough. We owe victims such as Dr Stephen Wright and his widow and children something more than the Government are currently giving. The Government owe them respect, which they are not currently receiving.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order.  As he will know, it is not a matter for the Chair, but Mr Speaker does expect Ministers to keep commitments made in the Chamber. I know that the Ministers present—and the health Whip, who is also present—will take back the hon. Gentleman’s point, and I hope that that will lead to some progress for him.

Mike Penning: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You and Mr Speaker were kind enough to let me raise this matter.
If any of us had done 39 years in the House—and, in fact, a few of our colleagues have—a lot of people would be standing up and saying, “What a fantastic job   you have done”, but for someone who has served the House for 39 years there is almost no recognition, and I want to put that right today.
Stuart Shearer Lancashire—I only know him as Stuart, because he is one of the chefs who smiles at everyone—has served us in this House, since before I came here, in every form of catering establishment. On the last day of last month, he retired after 39 years’ service. I pay tribute to him—and to his colleagues, who often do not receive the recognition that they deserve—not only for being a fantastic chef and a gentleman, with a smile on his face nearly every morning when we went for breakfast, but for the charitable work that he has done over the years. Some of us grow silly moustaches every year for “Movember”, but he excelled at it. He also dressed as an elf when I impersonated Father Christmas at the children’s Christmas party. That was a sight to behold, because he is a formidable gentleman who makes my tummy look very small! He will not mind my saying that. The sight of him in tights was one that I will never forget, and it is sad that he has retired. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Rosie Winterton: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point of order. The reception given to his tribute by Members in all parts of the House showed how much Stuart has been appreciated during his 39 years here, and I think that everyone here appreciated what the right hon. Gentleman said. I hope that Stuart heard it, and I am sure that he and his family will have been pleased to hear of the deep affection in which he has been held throughout that time and the respect that we have for the service that he has given to the House.

Bill Presented

Burglary (Police Response) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Ed Davey presented a Bill to set minimum standards for the police in relation to the investigation of domestic burglaries, including a requirement that a police officer should attend any domestic premises where a burglary has been reported; to place a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that police forces comply with the minimum standards; to require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament on compliance with the minimum standards; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 299).

Dartmoor National Park (Access)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Anthony Mangnall: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to publish proposals for a scheme to incentivise owners of land within Dartmoor National Park to allow enhanced access to that land in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.
I declare my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and also the fact that as a Member of Parliament I represent part of Dartmoor. Let me also point out that the Bill focuses specifically on Dartmoor national park, and should not be viewed as being applicable to other national parks or areas of land across the  country.
The unquestionable beauty of Dartmoor has been a draw for millennia. For more than 10,000 years, mankind has shaped and cultivated this landscape into what it is today—from the hunter-gatherer approach of the mesolithic and neolithic ages, to the farmed landscapes of the bronze and iron age periods, to the Saxon defences of Lydford and the prosperity of the late middle ages and the early modern era, coupled with the development of industry. It is no wonder that the rich and varied history of Dartmoor has proved to be a draw to resident and visitor alike.
This decamillennial landscape is a working environment that has been created from the outset of our beginnings. Today, it is a space in which agricultural, environmental and recreational endeavours have flourished to create jobs, conservation programmes, charitable projects, food and even industry. As a result, livelihoods have been created, experiences gained, and traditions passed down. Those three areas are not just important to the practitioners, but essential to the fabric of Dartmoor. They must work with one another, not in competition but in co-operation. The Bill seeks to protect and even enhance the rights attached to recreational activities on Dartmoor, while also mitigating the environmental and agricultural damage that has been known to take place within the national park.
We are fortunate that Dartmoor’s recreational pull attracts thousands of visitors each year. From the Duke of Edinburgh award to the Ten Tors to sleeping under the stars to simply walking along the national park trails, there is a draw that allows people to connect with nature, explore historic landscapes and witness the beauty of traditional moorland farming. It is precious, it is appreciated, and following the pandemic it is all the more needed. However, there are some issues that I hope the Bill will help to address.
First, recreational activity is critically important to human health, but it should not come at the expense of, or above, the environmental and agricultural activities that take place on the moorland. Unfortunately, in recent years the fine balance between those three areas has fallen out of kilter. Under the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985, the public have the rights and the Dartmoor national park authority has the responsibilities, although those are discretionary. However, the introduction and implementation of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 has created confusion and opaqueness in the law. It is rapidly becoming apparent that the national  park authority needs to be responsible for access management, and that for this to be successful there needs to be an appropriate level of resourcing.
Our success yesterday in calling for an independent inquiry into the management of the moor—a call to which the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Mark Spencer) graciously responded—could well serve as a vehicle for the consideration of this matter and many others that affect those who work and live on the moorland, and thus end the confusion between successive laws and bring about clarification and simplification. However, this will also require the national park authority to engage with all stakeholders on the moorland and ensure that its own composition is inclusive. It is no good attempting to hold the balance between these three important areas if various groups are excluded from the decision-making process. For instance, the fact that landowners have no representation on the Dartmoor management committee should be a cause for concern and should be rectified immediately.
Secondly, while the allocation of £440,000 to the national park authority for 2023-2024 is particularly welcome—it will play a significant role in helping to attract people to the national park and to ensure that facilities are up to scratch, as well as developing communication and understanding about Dartmoor—if the national park authority is to be able to support the agricultural, environmental and recreational interests, an upgrading of those resources will be necessary. The national park cannot serve society’s recreational, environmental and agricultural demands without the appropriate level of support. Additional support should come in the form of helping new rangers or wardens to look after the land, promoting the countryside code and preventing fly-camping—a form of camping whereby peripheral areas are camped on and then left in a state of untidiness—and working to engage the numerous land managers and various stakeholders.
I have learned during my short time in this place that it is helpful not just to point out problems but to bring solutions. I therefore suggest that, as outlined in chapter 2 of the Glover review, if we are to continue to preserve Dartmoor as a working environment that caters to multiple sectors and continues to be a welcoming environment for residents and visitors, including tourists from around the country and indeed the world, we should observe the following recommendations. We should create a stronger mission to connect all people with our national parks; we should use these landscapes to address the nation’s health and wellbeing; we should expand volunteering in our national landscapes; we should educate and provide better information on the workings of national parks for the stakeholders that operate within them; and we should develop a range of services to operate alongside all groups and organisations to promote the national park and protect it from damage and degradation.
Those suggestions have already been in the public domain for some time, and I understand that the Government are assessing their viability, but it is important that while we are asking the Government to act, the Dartmoor national park authority engages with the stakeholders and takes on that responsibility. Implementing those proposals in a speedy manner to the benefit of the public—which would see them introduced before any  wider legislation or reform—would be an effective way of taking people on board, and we should also aim to speed up the environmental land management scheme proposals.
Already, in the recently agreed agricultural transition update regarding ELMS under the heading of access and engagement, the countryside stewardship scheme is encouraging the following courses of action: farmers hosting tours of their farms for school pupils and care farm visitors, supplying access maps and signage and preparing sites for access by providing the necessary facilities; accreditation for staff carrying out countryside educational access visits; and a supplement to enable permissive access across woodland where access is currently limited.
It is also welcome that the Government are looking to provide new, long-term permissive access for recreation, and that, through the farming in protected landscapes programme, additional support will be provided in national parks. The Government have set the right tone by exploring how this can expand beyond permissive access, managing existing access pressures on land and water and education access. These are all welcome steps, but at present the information and understanding around those rights is hazy at best and opaque at worst.
As my Bill suggests, a publication setting out the extensive measures that are on offer while also informing and working together with Dartmoor stakeholders would not only show the collaborative approach the Government are taking but add further emphasis to the encouragement of diversification. It would also raise awareness of the extensive and often privately funded conservation and environmental programmes across the area that are working on landscape recovery, biodiversity improvements and improving the maintenance of the moorlands, whether through rewetting programmes, peatland maintenance, leaky dams or the reintroduction of long-lost species. There is a long list of things for us to be positive about.
This Bill seeks to protect the balance of activity on Dartmoor between the recreational, environmental and agricultural sectors. It looks to inform, to educate and to promote the work being done by the Government, by the Dartmoor national park authority and by stakeholders to ensure that all those who enjoy the benefits of Dartmoor national park can continue to do so. If implemented, my proposals will see public rights, permissive rights and property rights upheld. That is an important balance and an important factor to consider. It will also encourage continued co-operation and indeed occasional compromise for all those who love this historic and sacred space. I commend this Bill to the House.

Rosie Winterton: I call Richard Foord to speak for no more than 10 minutes.

Richard Foord: I do not intend to divide the House this afternoon, but I wish to speak against leave being given to bring forward such a Bill. I will set out my strong opposition to the terms set out by the hon. Member for Totnes (Anthony Mangnall), relating first to so-called enhanced access, secondly to land ownership and thirdly to incentives. I also refer Members to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests. They will see that I do not have any interests with a bearing on Dartmoor, but as a child  I took part in the Dartmoor Ten Tors. I also did the Duke of Edinburgh award on Dartmoor, and I would like to pay tribute to the young people from across east and mid-Devon who will take part in that gruelling exercise at the end of next week and to the others who will participate in the jubilee challenge.
John Dower wrote in 1945 in a report arguing for the creation of national parks such as Dartmoor that
“there can be few national purposes which, at so modest a cost, offer so large a prospect of health-giving happiness for the people”.
With that in mind, I wish to outline why a Bill such as the one the hon. Gentleman has outlined is not the route that we should be taking. First, on enhanced access, the Dartmoor Commons Act 1985 already confers on the public a right to walk or ride a horse on the commons. There are around 450 miles of public rights of way on Dartmoor and many miles of permitted footpaths and bridleways. I am sure that most Members would agree that in addition to rights we should also think about responsibilities. Rather than talking solely about public rights of way, we might like to think about public responsibilities of way. The people I know who walk on Dartmoor and other farmlands certainly think in those terms and have nothing but disdain for the small proportion of visitors who leave litter or cause fires through the irresponsible use of disposable barbecues.
The hon. Member for Totnes’s proposal refers to enhanced access, yet much of Dartmoor is already designated as access land. This means that it remains privately owned but has no restrictions on where walkers can explore. To put this into context, it is worth looking at some examples of who owns land on Dartmoor. Fifteen landowners own nearly half of the land on Dartmoor. Only 1.4% of the land is owned directly by the Dartmoor national park Authority, while around 37% of Dartmoor is designated as common land.
South West Water owns more than 5,000 acres of land on Dartmoor. This is a company that paid £45 million in dividends in 2022 and whose chief executive has a remuneration package worth £1.6 million, all while sewage continues to be discharged into our rivers, including the River Dart. South West Water has not been short of incentives from this Government, but for many of the wrong behaviours.
Another part of the moor, Brent moor, in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, is currently up for sale. It was reported in the press earlier this year that Brent moor was owned by the Saudi businessman Sheikh Khalid bin Ibrahim Al Ibrahim. The estate agent Knight Frank lists Brent Moor as
“2,763 acres of freehold land, with sporting rights in hand, sold subject to various rights, including common grazing rights and public rights of way”.
More than a third of the Dartmoor national park is private land owned by the Duchy of Cornwall. The current Prince of Wales, whom I admire sincerely, chooses to use a substantial proportion of his income from the Duchy estate to meet the cost of his public and charitable work. I do not suppose that he would want to be subject to so-called incentives to permit enhanced access on the Duchy estate.
Lastly, on this principle of proposed incentives, I am concerned that there is a suggestion here that the public should continue to enjoy the rugged beauty of Dartmoor  in exchange for incentives, and specifically incentives for some of the landowners I have referred to. I worry about the precedent that this might set for other national parks. The Glover report recommended that the number of visitors should be only one criterion for how core funding should be delivered through a national landscapes service.
I also worry about other examples of where this Government have sought to incentivise landowners with respect to public goods. Look at the glacial roll-out of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs’ environmental land management scheme. I would not even trust this Government to properly incentivise young farmers with a knees-up in a brewery. Farmers were promised a more generous and far less cumbersome, less bureaucratic set of incentives than those that the Government have landed on them. It is little wonder that sign-up to some tiers of ELMS is currently running at about 10%.
The right hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said in 2020:
“It makes no sense to subsidise land ownership and tenure where the largest subsidy payments too often go to the wealthiest landowners.”
But then last autumn he said in relation to the Australia and New Zealand trade deal negotiated by the Government of which he had been a part that it
“gave away far too much for far too little in return.”—[Official Report, 14 November 2022; Vol. 722, c. 424.]
I think we might expect the Government to do the same in any new scheme for so-called enhanced access.
For all these reasons, I urge that leave should not be given to bring in such a Bill. In 1909, Liberals sang “The Land”. I will save the House from a rendition with the melody, but it included words that remain true today, more than a century later:
“ ’Twas God who gave the land. God gave the land to the people.”
Question put (Standing Order No. 23) and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Anthony Mangnall, Kevin Foster, Simon Jupp, Sir Gary Streeter, Sir Geoffrey Cox, Anne Marie Morris, Luke Pollard and Selaine Saxby present the Bill.
Anthony Mangnall accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time Friday 24 November, and to be printed (Bill 293).

Finance (No. 2) Bill

[2nd Allocated Day] - Pensions (Clauses 18 to 25; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses); Electricity generator levy (Clauses 278 to 312; any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses); Power to clarify tax treatment of devolved social security benefit (Clause 27); alcohol duty: charge, rates and reliefs (Clauses 47 and 48 and Schedule 7; Clause 50 and Schedule 8; Clauses 51 to 54 and Schedule 9; Clauses 55 to 60); any new Clauses or new Schedules relating to the subject matter of those Clauses and those Schedules

Further considered in Committee
[Dame Rosie Winterton in the Chair]

Rosie Winterton: I remind Members that, in Committee, they should not address the Chair as “Deputy Speaker”. Please use our name when addressing the Chair. “Madam Chair,” “Chair,” “Madam Chairman” and “Mr Chairman” are also acceptable.

Clause 18 - Lifetime allowance charge abolished

Kirsty Blackman: I beg to move amendment 21, page 12, line 31, at beginning insert—
“(A1) This section applies to any person who it employed for an average of more than 15 hours per week by an NHS body.”
This amendment would limit the removal of the lifetime allowance charge to NHS staff.

Rosie Winterton: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 22, page 12, line 31, after “charge” insert
“for a person to whom this section applies”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 21.
Amendment 23, page 12, line 36, at end insert—
“(3) The Treasury may by regulations specify a list of NHS bodies, or types of bodies, in respect of which this section applies.
(4) Regulations under this section—
(a) may specify different bodies, or types of bodies, in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and
(b) are subject to annulment by a resolution of the House of Commons.”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 21 and gives the Treasury the power to define “NHS body” for the purposes of that amendment.
Clauses 18 to 24 stand part.
Amendment 27, in clause 25, page 18, line 23, at end insert—
“(4A) The arrangements must include that the Commissioners are required to provide to an individual their calculation of the appropriate amount under subsection (3).”
This amendment would require HMRC to provide recipients of the relief with a calculation of the payment so that it can be checked.
Amendment 28, page 18, line 26, insert—
“(5A) The arrangements must include procedures for the purposes of allowing an individual to—
(a) challenge the amount the Commissioners have determined to be the appropriate amount under subsection (3), and
(b) make a claim requesting that the Commissioners calculate and pay an appropriate amount in accordance with subsection (3) where the Commissioners have failed to make such a payment.
(5B) The individual must give notice to the Commissioners of any such challenge or claim no later than four years from the end of the relevant tax year as defined in subsection (1)(b).”
This amendment would enable a recipient of the relief to challenge the amount determined by HMRC if they think it is incorrect, and would allow someone not identified as eligible for the relief by HMRC to initiate a claim for it.
Amendment 29, page 18, line 41, at end insert—
“(8A) The arrangements must include a procedure for the Commissioners to correct, in accordance with section 9ZB TMA 1970, an individual’s personal return for the relevant tax year to include the appropriate amount paid under this section.”
This amendment would enable HMRC to correct the tax return of a recipient of a payment under the new section 193A FA2004, to reflect that the receipt of the payment has increased the recipient’s income for the year.
Clause 25 stand part.
New clause 4—Review of the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within three months of the passing of this Act, make a statement to the House of Commons on the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge introduced by section 18 of this Act and other changes to tax-free pension allowances introduced by sections 19 to 23 of this Act.
(2) The statement must provide the following information—
(a) the number of NHS doctors who will benefit from the policies referred to in subsection (1);
(b) the proportion of those benefiting from the policies referred to in subsection (1) who are NHS doctors;
(c) the number of people who are expected to—
(i) stay in work, and
(ii) return to work
as a result of the policies referred to in subsection (1);
(d) a breakdown of the figures in subsection (2)(c) by sector, including the number of people under subsection (2)(c)(i) and (ii) who are NHS doctors; and
(e) details of how a scheme that provided benefits equivalent to the policies referred to in subsection (1) only for NHS doctors could operate.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to make a statement setting out the impact of the tax-free pension allowance changes in relation to NHS doctors, and to set out details of how an alternative scheme targeted at NHS doctors could operate.
New clause 5—Review of alternatives to the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed—
(a) conduct a review of the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge introduced by section 18 of this Act and other changes to tax-free pension allowances introduced by sections 19 to 23 of this Act, and
(b) lay before the House of Commons a report setting out recommendations arising from the review.
(2) The review must make recommendations on how the policies referred to in subsection (1)(a) could be replaced with an alternative approach that provided equivalent benefits only for NHS doctors.”
This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact of the tax-free pension allowance changes and to recommend an alternative approach targeted at NHS doctors.

Kirsty Blackman: It is a delight to speak first in Committee of the whole House this afternoon. I had a few extra minutes to tweak my speech during the ten-minute rule Bill, as it is unusual for such a Bill to be opposed, and those extra few minutes will presumably have made my speech extra good. I am sure the whole Committee will listen very closely.
I rise to speak to amendment 21 in my name and in the name of my SNP and Plaid Cymru colleagues, but I will first talk about new clauses 4 and 5, which were tabled by the Opposition. The new clauses would require a review of the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge, with new clause 4 focusing on NHS doctors and new clause 5 looking more widely.
A significant number of questions have been raised in the House about the lifetime allowance and the problems it has caused, particularly for NHS doctors. I do not think any Opposition Member would consider that the solution to this problem is to abolish the lifetime allowance charge completely, which seems totally out of proportion. We have been raising this very serious issue for a number of years, but I never considered arguing against this solution because it never crossed my mind that the Government would do something quite so drastic or extreme.
New clauses 4 and 5 both ask for reviews, statements and information. Particularly pertinent is information on the number of NHS doctors who will benefit from the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge, as is a report containing recommendations in the light of a review of the effect of abolishing the lifetime allowance charge. The least the Government can do, if they are to make such a massive change to the lifetime allowance or the pension tax system, is provide us with as much information as possible so that we can consider all the potential and actual implications. We would then have all the information at our fingertips. The Government are able to access HMRC data in a way that the rest of us cannot, so we need details on the actual impact of these changes.
On the specific issue of NHS doctors, Torsten Bell of the Resolution Foundation has said that 20% of those who benefit from the change to the lifetime allowance work in the finance industry. He said that
“nearly as many bankers as doctors”
will benefit from this change. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has called it “bizarre”, stating:
“if this is aimed at doctors then it really is a huge sledgehammer to crack a tiny nut.”
That accords with our understanding.
Again, we agree that this significant issue for doctors needs to be fixed, but the Government are going about it in totally the wrong way. During the covid pandemic, we clapped NHS staff from our doorsteps. We recognise how difficult NHS staff had it working on the frontline during the pandemic, and how difficult they continue to have it. When other people were furloughed, they were working hard, day in and day out, to keep as many of us  alive and healthy as possible, yet the Government are giving exactly the same break to bankers as they are giving to those who worked day in, day out to keep us all safe. That does not make sense. If we want to support our NHS, to ensure that we have the best possible public services and to give the NHS our vote of confidence, our backing and our support, we should recognise that those working in the NHS provide a vital public service and therefore deserve different treatment from those who work in the finance industry, for example, and who do not provide that level of public service.
I thank the Clerk of Bills, who was helpful in drafting these amendments. I knew what I wanted to do, but I was not quite sure how to do it, so I very much appreciated that assistance.
Amendment 21 would mean that the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge applies only to those employed by an NHS body for more than 15 hours a week, on average.

Aaron Bell: We all respect the hard work of NHS staff, but why does that argument not equally apply to, say, senior police officers?

Kirsty Blackman: An awful lot of people work hard. The specific issue that many of our constituents have raised is in the NHS. I have not been approached with this concern by senior police officers, but I have been approached by NHS doctors. If the hon. Gentleman feels particularly strongly about senior police officers, he could table an amendment so that people employed in the wider public sector, or in the police service, can be included in this measure. I think both police officers and NHS staff could be included, but it would be ridiculous to include everyone, no matter how little they do for the public good.

Anthony Browne: Not only NHS staff and senior police officers but state school headteachers, senior civil servants in our local authorities, air traffic controllers and senior Government scientists are affected by the lifetime allowance. In fact, about half the people affected work in the public sector. If the hon. Lady follows her rationale, she would end up with a completely different tax regime for public sector pensions. Does she think that would be fair for private sector workers?

Kirsty Blackman: Given how much we have relied on our public sector, and given how unwilling this Government are to come to the table on pay negotiations, it would be totally reasonable for this House to say, “Our public sector is incredibly important. We want to support our public sector workers, and therefore we want to give them differential access to lifetime allowance exclusions.”
Amendment 22 is consequential on amendment 21. Amendment 23 would allow the Secretary of State to specify which NHS bodies, or types of bodies, are covered, given that the NHS is structured in different ways in England, Scotland and throughout these islands. It makes sense for the Secretary of State to make that decision.
The amendments cover NHS staff who work, on average, at least 15 hours a week so that they cover all the NHS staff who have come to us with pension concerns, particularly doctors but also other senior  NHS staff. I have a large teaching hospital in my constituency, and there is another hospital just over the boundary. There is a medical school too.

Anthony Browne: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kirsty Blackman: Not just now.
A significant number of doctors live and work in Aberdeen, and a number of them have come to me with concerns about the pension regime. One of them did not realise that he was about to hit the lifetime allowance until his accountant came to him and said, “This is how much you are required to pay in tax.” He had tipped over into this additional tax because he had taken on hours to teach junior doctors and medical students how to be better doctors. He had taken those extra hours on at the request of the hospital. This was because the immigration laws and rules have meant that a number of our doctors are struggling to jump through the hoops that the UK Government have put in a place or they are feeling that the Home Office is particularly against doctors coming from other countries.
That constituent had been asked to take on those hours as a result of the changes in some of the departments. He had willingly taken on those hours because he knows how important continuing professional development is in the NHS and how important it is to have a new generation of doctors coming through, but he had then been hit with a massive tax bill as a result. When I met him, he said to me, “I do not want to take on any more teaching as a result of what has happened to me. The amount I have been taxed means that the teaching costs me money. I don’t see why I should be asked to do this when I am training the next generation of doctors.”

Anthony Browne: I am glad that the hon. Lady recognises the dangers of high levels of taxation in discouraging people from work, as I believe those on both sides of the House can agree on that. Her amendment mentions the NHS and people who work for “an NHS body”. What does she think about this applying to GPs? The overwhelming majority of GPs do not actually work for the NHS—they are self-employed or work for their partnerships. Does she think that GPs should be excluded from this legislation as well?

Kirsty Blackman: That is one reason why our amendment 23 would allow the Secretary of State to make those specifications, so that all the people considered to be working for NHS bodies—GPs are commissioned by NHS bodies—are included. The measure was intended to allow that level of flexibility. If I had not intended to allow that level of flexibility, we would not have tabled amendment 23 to allow the Secretary of State that flexibility. We referred to NHS bodies and specified a number of hours so that someone who works for the significant majority of their time in private practice and private systems, and perhaps works an hour or so every few months for the NHS, would not be caught by this measure. The intention is that those people who work for a significant amount of their time in contributing to the health of the population, making people better and well, ensuring that they stay healthy and live longer lives, are recognised and given the opportunity to benefit from this measure.
My understanding, from everything that the Government have said previously about this, is that one of the biggest concerns in this area relates to NHS doctors. If the Government feel that there are other significant areas  of the public sector where people could and should benefit, I look forward very much to the Minister standing up and explaining all of those. I am sure I will be asking further questions about this in Committee.
The lifetime allowance was in place for a reason and it does not work in relation to senior NHS staff, but it does work in relation to those places where people are not contributing to the health and wellbeing of our population and where people have not been on the frontline during the past few years, working under immense pressure for the public good. SNP Members will therefore vote against clause 18 standing part of the Bill if we have a vote on that. That clause is about the abolition of that lifetime charge. We do not agree that that should apply to everyone. The Government need to bring in a bespoke scheme to solve this problem, rather than applying it to everybody, no matter how much money is involved and how little public service they provide for that income that they receive. I ask the House to support amendment 21, which stands in my name and those of my colleagues.

Andrew Griffith: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman). We are covering clauses 18 to 25, which will remove the pension tax barriers to remaining in work that highly skilled and experienced individuals across the public and private sectors, including senior NHS clinicians, are facing. The clauses also ensure that the tax regime works appropriately for the winding up of collective money purchase schemes and legislates to provide taxpayer-funded top-up payments for up to 1.2 million of the lowest earners in net pay pension schemes.
I will discuss the clauses in detail briefly in a moment, but just in case the Opposition are foolish enough to think of dividing the House today, let me be clear: this Government are on the side of hard-working people in every sector. Unlike the Opposition parties, we are not in the business of privileging those who work in the NHS over those who work in adult social care, those who work in our prisons and schools, or those who put themselves in harm’s way in the police or our armed forces. Those public service heroes will be watching today’s debate with consternation at the fact that two supposedly mainstream political parties in this country seek to pit public sector workers against public sector workers for short-term political point scoring, as will wealth creators in business and financial services, vaccine discovering scientists, charities and the creative industries. I even wish the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) well with his pension. Given his plummeting poll ratings, he may be needing it sooner than he thinks.
Unlike the Labour and nationalist parties, I want everyone to have the same opportunity. There could not be a better domain than pensions policy for showing where we seek to support those who wish to provide for themselves and their families. Of course, by doing so, they are relieving the burden on the state and allowing it to focus taxpayers’ resources on the most vulnerable in society.

Anthony Browne: Does the Minister agree that the 80% of employees who work for the private sector make a valuable contribution to the wellbeing of the country  as well? Does he agree that they would have a right to feel annoyed at the idea that there should be an especially punitive regime just for private sector workers, which the public sector workers do not get punished by?

Andrew Griffith: My hon. Friend makes exactly the point that I was making, and does so extremely well. It is wrong for us in this House to seek to assign to ourselves the ability to judge the virtuous nature of people’s activity. I am sure that an accountant in the private sector works as diligently as an accountant seeking to drive value for money and the best medical outcomes in the NHS. With the greatest respect, I think that the hon. Member for Aberdeen North goes a little too far in seeking to “unbake” the wonderful cake of our mixed economy health system, which involves contributions from the private sector, private forensic laboratories and private diagnostic machines, and the wonderful work of our clinicians, and administrative, ancillary and domiciliary staff, who are mostly in the public sector. As I have said, her approach is the wrong basis on which this House should proceed.
Clauses 18 to 23 will reform pension tax thresholds to remove the current disincentives for highly experienced individuals to remain in the labour market or even to return to the workforce to build up their retirement savings. Currently, there are limits placed on the amount of tax-relieved pension savings individuals can make each year and an additional second restriction that applies to the total. That is an unusual feature of the tax system, where almost every other allowance is on an annual basis. The Government listened to stakeholders from across the public and private sectors, who have said that the annual and lifetime allowances can influence the timing of retirement and act as a barrier to remaining in the workforce.
The changes made by these clauses will increase the annual allowance from £40,000 to £60,000 and remove the lifetime allowance charge from 6 April 2023. The changes will ensure that pensions tax does not act as a barrier to staying in or returning to work, and will eliminate the chilling impact that the mere fear of triggering an extra tax charge has, even for those who are not immediately subject to falling foul of the cap. Much as the opposition parties may not wish to hear this, these changes command support across the economy. The Guild of Air Traffic Control Officers told us that pension taxation risks causing its members to reject tasks essential for the safe and efficient operation of air traffic control in the United Kingdom.
Dr Vishal Sharma of the British Medical Association has said that this is
“an incredibly important step forward”.
He said that the abolition of the lifetime allowance will mean that
“senior doctors will no longer be forced”—
his words—
“to retire early and can continue to work within the NHS, providing vital patient care.”
The Forces Pension Society said that this is a positive development and that it had been lobbying for it for several years. It said that these changes will help keep our streets safe. Marc Jones, chairman of the Association of Police and Crime Commissioners, confirmed that, as it relates to the police, they
“will be a game changer for thousands who love their jobs and do not want to retire.”
To support those who have left the labour market to return and build up their retirement savings, these clauses will also increase the money purchase annual allowance from £4,000 to £10,000 from April 2023. This will enable more individuals who have previously retired to return to the workforce and to continue to build their savings. In line with these headline reforms, there are also technical changes. They increase the minimum tapered annual allowance from £4,000 to £10,000 and the adjusted income level required for the annual tapered annual allowance to apply to an individual from £240,000 to £260,000.

Kirsty Blackman: While the Minister is talking about all the public sector individuals who will benefit as a result of these changes, he has not made the case for why this should apply to bankers. Why should bankers receive this exemption from the lifetime allowance? What benefit will the country get as a result?

Andrew Griffith: I am sure that the significant number of people—over half a million—who depend on jobs in the financial sector, including in places such as Edinburgh, one of our great financial centres, are listening with consternation to the politics of envy. The hon. Lady singles out individual professions and invites us to set separate tax policies on the basis of a particular profession. That would be entirely wrong. If she had been listening very carefully—I understand that she wanted to get in, because this is a debate and is the opportunity to do so—she would have heard that I was talking about the annual tapered allowance. That is a feature in pensions policy that is there entirely to ensure that it continues to have a progressive nature. A banker who is earning £260,000 a year can get only a reduced amount. They cannot avail themselves of the same annual allowance as the hon. Lady’s friends, colleagues and those she seeks to represent in our public services. I can assure the House that this is not a charter for bankers. In fact, the annual tapered allowance remains unchanged in its operation. We are updating the thresholds here today.
Unless the hon. Lady wishes to withdraw her amendment at this point having heard the strength of our arguments, I will now turn briefly to the remaining clauses that we are debating today, covering collective money purchase pension arrangements and relief relating to net pay arrangements. Collective money purchase is a new type of pension arrangement. Clause 24 will prevent any unintended tax consequences should a collective money purchase scheme wind up. It will ensure that members and their dependants can receive payments and transfer funds without incurring an unauthorised payments tax charge—I do not think that that should be controversial for the House.
Finally, clause 25 relates to the introduction of top-up payments for the lowest earners—another highly progressive measure—who sit within net pay pension schemes. There are two main methods of giving pensions tax relief. Although they provide the same outcomes for most individuals, lower earners can have different levels of take-home pay depending on how their pension scheme is administered for tax purposes, and the Government believe they are right to rectify that.
Clause 25 makes changes to ensure that eligible low-earning individuals whose income sits below their personal allowance receive a taxpayer-funded top-up payment so that they will have broadly similar take-home pay regardless of how their pension scheme is administered for tax purposes. The hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) has tabled some amendments in this respect, and I wrote to him yesterday to provide some of the comfort that I think he was looking for. They were well-intentioned amendments, and I hope that the letter I have sent him gives him some of the satisfaction that he seeks. Fundamentally, we do not disagree with what he is trying to achieve, and it has the support of those who have been agitating for low-income earners. That measure could benefit an estimated 1.2 million low earners who save into an occupational pension under net pay arrangements.
In conclusion, as I have set out, we know that there is a problem that needs to be tackled. It is a fact that individuals are choosing to retire early to prevent incurring pension taxes. The changes today, which have been widely welcomed by sectoral representatives across the economy, will ensure that we can retain our most skilled and experienced workers in all sectors while also simplifying and improving the pension arrangements for millions of households. I therefore urge Members to accept that clauses 18 to 25 should stand part of the Bill.

James Murray: Thank you, Dame Rosie, for the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Opposition. I wish to speak in support of the new clauses in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare).
In this debate, we get the chance to discuss something rare: a tax cut from this Government. It is rare to see a tax cut from this Government, because we are so used to seeing tax rises from them—24 tax rises in the past few years. We now face a tax burden in this country that has risen to its highest level in 70 years. This month, people across the country are being hit by a double whammy of Tory tax rises. Freezes to income tax thresholds mean stealth tax rises for working people, while, at the same time, families are being hit by the Tories’ council tax bombshell.
Let me be clear about what these tax rises mean: the Government’s six-year freeze in the personal allowance will take its real value in 2027-28 back down to its 2013-14 level, while this year, council tax for the typical band D property will breach £2,000 for the first time. In the middle of a cost of living crisis, made worse by the Conservatives’ tax rises, one permanent tax cut was announced by the Chancellor in his Budget last month. That tax cut, introduced by the clauses we are debating today, sees £l billion of public money spent to benefit only the 1% with the biggest pension pots. It is an extraordinary way to spend £l billion in the middle of a cost of living crisis, which is still hitting people across this country hard. Ministers may claim that their decision was driven by a desire to get doctors back in work, but it is clear that they could have found a fair, targeted fix for doctors’ pensions at a fraction of the cost. The British Medical Association has said that a targeted doctors’ scheme could cost as little as £32 million to implement. The Conservative Chair of the Treasury Committee has said that even she was surprised that the  Government did a blanket cut, rather than a bespoke policy for doctors. That is why we oppose the Government’s plans to abolish the lifetime allowance charge in clause 18 as part of their package of changes covered by clauses 18 to 23.
I wish to spend a few moments addressing clause 25, which covers a separate pensions matter, unrelated to the package of measures that we have concerns about. Clause 25 introduces, as the Minister has said, a scheme of “top-up payments” for low earners contributing to net pay pension schemes who currently miss out on a Government pension savings incentive. We know that tax relief on pension contributions can be given to individual scheme members in two ways: relief at source and net pay arrangements. In the case of the former, even non-taxpayers are given basic rate tax relief, but in the case of the latter they are not. As the Minister said, this is particularly unfair as individual people have no control over which form of scheme their employer chooses. We commend the efforts of the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group, along with pension providers, Age UK, the TUC, and others, to campaign for a change to the law, which is culminating in clause 25 before us today.
There are, however, a number of points of detail that we would like to raise with the Minister. To help draw these out, we have tabled amendments, three of which— amendments 27, 28 and 29—have been selected for debate today. I wish to put on record my thanks to the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group for its help in drafting these amendments.
We recognise that, under the measures proposed in clause 25, there is an onus on His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs to make payments to eligible individuals. While we hope, of course, that HMRC would always do the right thing, we think individuals should be able to challenge the amount paid if they think it is incorrect. With that in mind, amendment 27 would require HMRC to provide recipients of the relief with a calculation of the payment so that it can be checked. I therefore welcome confirmation from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in a letter sent to me this morning that
“HMRC are already planning to provide customers with details of the payment and how it was calculated.”
I would welcome any further detail on that commitment that the Economic Secretary is able to give in his closing remarks.
We have also tabled amendment 28, which would enable a recipient of the relief to challenge HMRC’s decision if they think it is incorrect. In the letter from the Economic Secretary that I received this morning, he said he felt that was unnecessary:
“Where an individual feels the top up payment is incorrect, HMRC will help them understand what may have caused the issue. HMRC will either address this or direct them to their employer”.
He also wrote:
“Individuals who don’t get a payment, but think they should, will be able to contact HMRC who will explain why a top-up payment has not been made and what is necessary to correct the situation.”
While I do not object to what the Economic Secretary has written, I would be grateful if he could address directly why he feels it is not right to put people’s ability to challenge HMRC’s decision in the Bill itself. Our amendment makes it clear that HMRC must be notified of such a challenge,
“no later than four years from the end of the relevant tax year”.
When he replies, can he tell us what time limit applies to the process he referred to in his letter?
Finally on this clause, the Low Incomes Tax Reform Group has highlighted concerns over how top-up payments are treated when people have filed a self-assessment tax return. If an individual received one of those payments after having filed a self-assessment return for the relevant tax year, their return for that year would then be incorrect, as it would not be a full record of their income for that year. By way of possible solution, the group has therefore suggested amendment 29, which we have tabled, a change that would enable HMRC to correct the tax return of a recipient of a payment. In his letter, the Economic Secretary suggested that HMRC already has the power proposed by the amendment. I would be grateful if he could confirm, for the avoidance of doubt, that that is the case.
I return now to the measures in clauses 18 to 23, which, as I mentioned earlier, propose changes to the lifetime allowance charge and other tax-free annual allowances, so that I can discuss our two new clauses 4 and 5. With these new clauses, we want to press Ministers on the fundamental question why they chose to implement an expensive blanket approach that fails to offer value for money, rather than choosing a targeted scheme for NHS doctors.
When the Government are considering how to spend over £l billion of public money in the middle of a cost of living crisis, it is more important than ever to make sure that they are spending public money wisely. As I mentioned earlier, the British Medical Association has said a targeted doctors’ scheme could cost as little as £32 million to implement, and even the Conservative Chair of the Treasury Committee said she was surprised by the Government’s blanket approach. The central question is this: do the Conservatives think this is the right way to spend £1 billion of public money?
Before he moved into No. 11 Downing Street, the Chancellor had recently seemed to favour an approach targeted at doctors. Last July, while he was the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, it published a report stating:
“The Government must act swiftly to reform the NHS pension scheme to prevent senior staff from reducing their hours and retiring early”.
We might even have thought from what the Chancellor said in his Budget speech that he was going to announce a scheme for doctors, since he began that section of his remarks by saying:
“Finally, I have listened to the concerns of many senior NHS clinicians, who say unpredictable pension tax charges are making them leave the NHS just when they are needed most.”—[Official Report, 15 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 844.]
However, what the Chancellor announced that day, and what is legislated for in this Bill, goes much further than the fair fix that was needed for NHS doctors. Rather than introducing a targeted scheme to keep doctors working, instead the Conservatives have introduced an expensive blanket change that will benefit all those with the biggest pension pots.

Anthony Browne: The hon. Gentleman is making the case for a special NHS-only or doctors-only regime. Does he accept that senior workers in other parts of the public sector are affected by the lifetime pensions allowance?  There was already a separate scheme for judges, and we know about the former Director of Public Prosecutions having his own individual scheme, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that there are senior police officers, senior local authority civil servants, senior Government scientists, air traffic controllers—as we have heard—and other workers across the public sector who are disincentivised from continuing to work by the current regime?

James Murray: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but the argument we were hearing from hon. Members on both sides of the House was about NHS doctors and keeping them in work. The Chancellor himself, when he was Chair of the Select Committee, said that we needed targeted intervention to help NHS doctors. No one was talking about a wider scheme to affect everyone with the largest pension pots until the Chancellor stood up and made his announcement on Budget day. I respectfully suggest the hon. Gentleman focuses on our amendments in hand and on new clause 5, which suggests that, rather than proceed with a blanket scheme affecting everyone with a pension pot, we should do what I thought there was an emerging consensus around and develop a targeted scheme for NHS doctors.
Otherwise, the Government’s approach fails the critical test for any Government spending—whether they are spending public money wisely. Yet Ministers refuse to entertain the prospect of a targeted scheme for NHS doctors instead. That is why we have tabled new clause 5, which would require the Chancellor to make recommendations on what a scheme targeted at NHS doctors would look like. We believe that is a crucial question to be answered. I hope that any Conservative Members, including the hon. Gentleman, who are concerned about spending public money wisely, getting value for money and supporting our NHS, will vote for new clause 5 in the Division Lobby later.

Anthony Browne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Murray: No; I am going to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman has intervened quite a lot and I am looking forward to his speech, as I am sure everyone in the Committee is.
When the Economic Secretary responds, I would be grateful if he could address the points set out by new clause 4, in particular by giving some much-needed clarity on the scale of the impact the Government expect their changes to pension allowances to have. Can he tell us how many people are expected to stay in work or return to work as a result of these policies? What sectors do they work in? How many of them are NHS doctors? Those are important questions, yet it has been hard to get exact answers from Ministers. The Office of Budget Responsibility has said the changes to pension contribution allowances will increase employment by around 15,000, but Paul Johnson of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that figure is “optimistic”.
When the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was asked on Second Reading of this Bill how many doctors would stay in the NHS because of these measures, she confidently quoted Department of Health and Social Care statistics that around 22,000 senior NHS clinicians would have been expected to exceed the £40,000 annual  allowance this year. However, she may not have known that, at the very same time, the permanent secretary who oversees Government spending was appearing before the Treasury Committee, where the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) was asking her questions. When asked about the evidence on how many of those 22,000 NHS clinicians would have been discouraged from working by the cap, she said the evidence was “mixed” and that they would need to do further evaluation.
It seems clear that the Government simply do not know how many people will be brought back into work as a result of their changes to pension tax-free allowances. They certainly do not know how many NHS doctors will come back into work, and they have clearly failed to do the thinking on how a bespoke approach for NHS doctors could operate.
That is why we oppose the Conservatives’ pension changes and why we will be voting for a fair fix for doctors’ pensions to get them back into work. We will be voting to spend public money wisely. We will be voting against a Government who choose to cut tax for the richest 1%, while pushing up stealth taxes and council tax on working people across the country.

Robert Syms: I declare an interest, as I am in the parliamentary pension scheme and I think I am one of the older people in the Chamber today. Indeed, I am old enough to remember when the shadow Health and Social Care Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), was musing about getting rid of the lifetime allowance—a matter of a few weeks ago, before the Government did it.
Doctors in Poole have said to me clearly over a number of years that at a certain stage of their career they have all the skills, but when they work they get annual bills, and when they look at their lifetime allowance it makes sense for them to retire. The tax policy of the lifetime allowance and the annual allowance have been improving the golfing skills of GPs and hospital doctors, because they get to a point where, if they do the extra work, they are penalised by the tax system and they say, “Why should I do this?” Many still do it, but it is totally wrong that we have a tax policy that discriminates against people who want to work and want to use their skills.
One key thing that the Government have done is put billions into the national health service to catch up with the backlog. If we are putting billions in and want productivity in our hospitals to improve, it is totally inconsistent to have a tax system in which the key people leading teams and doing tests find that it is a disadvantage for them to work. We will never get the lists down if people feel that they are penalised for working hard, and many want to work hard. I have talked to doctors since the changes, and the evidence in my constituency is that some have decided to delay their retirements, which they had already put in for, while others who had retired are now coming back to work part-time. The main improvements will be higher productivity and more patients being seen. I do not know whether there will be a massive advantage for doctors, but there will be for patients, because at the end of the day, there are people waiting to have tests and operations, and this will make the national health service rather more productive that it would otherwise be.
Also, because many early-retirement doctors will now stay working, they will continue to receive salaries and pay tax at the normal rate. I am somewhat sceptical about the £1 billion cost because, if significant numbers of people stay in our hospitals, they will ultimately continue to pay taxes and many of them are higher-rate taxpayers. The key point is that we have to focus on the patients, not on the providers of services. If the providers of services can work and have incentives to work, we will get through more patients, which is what people in this House want.
It is difficult to focus on the national health service alone. There are the anomalies not only of general practitioners—I come across general practitioners well into their 50s and nearing retirement who work only three days a week because of the tax system, and this measure will help them—but of dentists. We all get people writing to us about a shortage of dentists—particularly NHS dentists—and unless we fix these problems, which are pushing experienced dentists into early retirement, our constituents will not get the services that they need.
As my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) pointed out, many other high-skilled, high-paid public sector jobs are impossible for managers to manage because the people undertaking those tasks are penalised either by a big tax bill each year, or by the difficulty of seeing their lifetime allowances used, so there is no great incentive for them to continue working. If we have a problem in this country, it is one of productivity. This tax change improves productivity. If we improve productivity in people-facing services, such as those provided by dentists and doctors, the people waiting for those services will clearly be more and better looked after by the system.
When the Conservative party came into office, the lifetime allowance was £1.8 million, which was a significant sum 14 years ago. The reason it was reduced was that there was a suspicion that City slickers were putting millions into pension funds and not paying any tax. In reality, it has come down too far and is hitting people who we need to provide the skills that they have trained for over years. Doctors spend years training and decades getting experience, but at the time when they are needed most—to deal with the waiting list—they find that the pension system is forcing them into retirement or to play golf. What the Government have done is sensible.
I do not accept the figures from the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray). The main benefit of the changes will be for those in the health service, but we cannot differentiate between one person providing one skill and somebody else providing some other skill. From that point of view, the tax system has to be neutral. If we get into a position in which the more worthy people pay less tax, we may as well be saying, “Why should anybody in the NHS pay tax? Why not just give them a free ride?” That is an argument without a great deal of thought behind it. We have to have a neutral tax system without the Government trying to second guess about the public or private sector, or whether doctors are more worthy than others.
I think that the Government have done quite a brave thing, and it was the right thing to do. Government is about taking the right decisions, even if they are not always the most popular. They are the right decisions to  provide better medical care for our constituents and to get the NHS backlog down. Of course, one of the Prime Minister’s key pledges is to do just that. This is one measure that will enable that by letting people work longer, harder and more productively.

Aaron Bell: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms). I rise to speak to clauses 18 to 25, which I support. I was unsurprised to hear that the Opposition do not support them. The shadow Health Secretary, the hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), told The Daily Telegraph on 2 September that the cap was “crazy”. He did not say that specifically about the NHS—although, as shadow Health Secretary, he obviously spoke about the NHS—but he called the cap “crazy”. He then said:
“I’m not pretending that doing away with the cap is a particularly progressive move… I’m just being hard-headed and pragmatic about this.”
Well, obviously that could not last. On the day of the Budget, the hard-headed and pragmatic approach from the shadow Health Secretary—the so-called “heir to Blair”—was handed over to the soft-headed and opportunistic approach that we saw in the response from the Leader of the Opposition. Actually, it was not in his response, because he had to go away and first check with some other people what the Labour policy was going to be, but Labour later came out against the policy, and has tabled amendments to strike the clauses entirely and replace them with new clauses, which I am sure the Government will oppose.
To address the point about progressiveness, it is absolutely asinine to assume that the only test of any fiscal measure is whether it is progressive. We seek to do lots of things with our tax system: incentivise people, grow our economy, grow our productivity. The measures proposed by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury today, and by the Chancellor in the Budget, will do that. We want to incentivise people to stay in work and return to work.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, I am not even sure that there will be a cost in the long run, because those who do not retire early will pay tax while they are earning their salaries. One big problem in our society is people retiring early with all the wisdom, experience and skills that they have at that stage of their careers. People are so productive in their 50s and 60s because they have accumulated so much knowledge, so to have people retiring early is a crying shame, not only for the country as a whole but for them, their patients and the people whom they serve in other ways. Also, those people will ultimately pay more tax when they claim their pensions; it is not a tax-free system. People might be exempt on entry into their pension scheme and exempt on returns, but they pay taxes when they draw their pensions, so taxes will be paid in the long run.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) made a point about bankers, which was ably answered by the Minister. We still have a tapering of the annual allowance for people who earn incredibly large salaries, of which there are a number in this country, although not many in my constituency. As many on the Conservative Benches have said, we do not seek to divide people based on where they work or the nature of their jobs. Our tax system works for everybody.
Our public sector has incredibly generous pension provision, as we have seen in recent discussions about strikes. That is why some people in the national health service, for example, have accumulated notionally very large pension pots. They are highly skilled, long-serving public servants who earn substantial salaries, particularly towards the latter end of their careers. If they have been on the scheme for a long time, they could be entitled to a pretty large pension, and we multiply it only by 20 to find out their defined benefit. So people in the public sector in defined benefit schemes are already better treated than people in the private sector, in which the same level of salary could not be purchased for £1.07 million.
I heard that argument from doctors, I put it to the Minister, and I am glad that the Chancellor listened in the Budget. I have heard the argument from others in Newcastle-under-Lyme that the system disincentivises people to continue working. We should be against that. Clause 18 abolishes the lifetime allowance, as we have heard. In clause 19, we quite rightly limit the tax-free lump sum. I do not think that it would be conscionable to have an unlimited lump sum, which could be abused. We also have a limit on the annual allowance and its tapering, so it would not be plausible for people with defined contributions on a normal career trajectory to challenge the sort of high numbers—£2 million or £3 million—that people are talking about. It is not just feasible for most people—unless they have exceptionally good returns from their pension investments—to achieve those sums in their lifetime.
Another iniquity of the current system is that people can stop paying into their defined contribution scheme and—if in a bull market, for example—have no idea how much their scheme might increase by. Obviously, that is down to investment returns, for people who do not know where they stand with their pensions right up until the moment of crystallisation.
As I said in my intervention earlier, and as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) expanded on, there are all sorts of people who welcome this. They include people in both the private and the public sector, senior armed forces personnel, senior police chiefs, headteachers, people in the NHS and GPs.
Dr Richard Fieldhouse, chair of the National Association of Sessional GPs, said of the shadow Health Secretary’s comments:
“Each person’s pension fund is their embodiment of a lifetime’s worth of delayed gratification. So any measures to motivate people towards this is to be welcomed, particularly when applied to us as GPs”.
That is what pensions are—pay deferred. From the Government’s point of view, they are tax deferred as well. They are not tax waived or tax given away; they are tax deferred until the point at which the person, whether they work in the private or the public sector, gets the rewards for their labour.
That is why I support what we have done in the Budget. The measure will simplify things for people, save lives in the NHS and, more than anything, encourage people, whatever their job is, to stay in work for longer, and that is all to the good of the British economy.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell). I agree with everything he said.
I am a little surprised that we have ended up having to have this debate again today. Generally speaking, people who campaign for their own interests and ask for a special scheme for doctors do so because that was their particular area. However, if we stand back and ask how it is possible to make a special scheme for one particular sector work, we quickly realise that it is fiendishly difficult to do. There are all sorts of scenarios where we hit a problem. For example, some people have split careers, spending some time in the NHS and the rest of the time outside it. Others have split jobs where they might be a consultant for a couple of days a week and then spend another couple of days training the next set of doctors as a university lecturer. That puts them in a different pension scheme that is not subject to the same tax regime. They might say, “I have an NHS pension but I’ll pay it all on my other one,” so that would not work. What about people who are not employed by the NHS or any of the myriad trusts and organisations?
I do not want to pick too much on the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), because I have tabled enough in my time to know that they are not always drafted precisely. However, if we use the word “employed” in draft legislation, that cannot be stretched to include a partner in a GP practice, because they are not employed by anybody. If we use the phrase “employed in an NHS organisation”, that cannot be stretched to include somebody working as a locum, because they are a contractor rather than somebody who is employed. There is all manner of people in the NHS family who we want to encourage to stay in work, but this is not how we will achieve it.
I also think that the hon. Lady has chosen the wrong mechanism. This would result in her having a nightmare. As soon as a person who used to be exempt ceased to work more than 15 hours or retired, the lifetime allowance would kick in and clobber them when they drew their pension. I understand her intention, but I suspect that her mechanism of choice would be disastrous.
Having thought through the scenarios, how do we pick a sector and get the right people? Are we trying to help doctors or are we trying to help anybody who happens to be employed by the NHS? As I said earlier, we are basically helping accountants, finance directors and procurement directors—all manner of people who are paid very large amounts by the NHS. I probably do not have the same amount of sympathy for their contribution to public service as I do for that of frontline doctors. It is bizarre to give a tax advantage to an NHS finance director, who gets a very generous pension, and not to an entrepreneur who is trying to grow the economy and create jobs to pay for all of this. That seems to create a huge iniquity.
If we stand back and think about how we want tax policy to work—heaven forbid that the Opposition get into government and try to do this—it would be really hard, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne) has said, to go down the route of justifying different tax rates for public sector employees. If we start asking why we are charging them the same income tax and national insurance, we will end up in a horrible world and a very complicated tax regime.
Those of us who have very good public sector pensions should be very careful. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms), my lack of career success means that I am not worried about the lifetime allowance, including under the old level, because 20 times my pension gets me nowhere near it. Strange situations are being proposed. When I was first elected 13 years ago, a big issue on the doorstep was, “Public sector pensions are too generous. It’s not fair. I work in the private sector, basically paying for that, and I’m going to get a tiny pension. People in the public sector are being paid the same or more than me, and they are getting a massively generous pension. It’s not fair.” The coalition Government’s response to tackling that perceived unfairness was to change the scheme from final salary to average salary. If we load on to that generous, inflation-protected, state-guaranteed pension a more generous tax treatment than that received by private sector pensions, that would recreate that horrible argument.
It is foolish and damaging to go down the route of cherry-picking favoured sectors and giving them different tax treatment from other sectors. It was a mistake to take that approach to judges and to Directors of Public Prosecution, and it would be a mistake to apply it to doctors. The tax system should apply to everybody across the board in the same way. If we want to provide more reward to people, we should do so by pay rather than by tax. That is a far better approach.
I want to address where the Government have ended up. We have a very complicated pensions tax regime where people do not pay tax on the way in or on an annual basis. Instead, they pay tax on what they draw out of the pension when they get to the end, unless they draw out a quarter of it as a lump sum, in which case they do not pay tax on it all. We have chosen a pension model whereby the state pension broadly provides people with subsistence to live on, and if people want more than that, we incentivise them with a generous tax regime so that they can save it themselves. The implication is that a higher earner gets a greater tax incentive because, unlike a lower earner, they save tax at 40% or 45%. They probably pick up a bit more tax at the end, but a large amount of people pay a lower marginal tax rate when they retire than when they are working. That is the system that we have chosen.
We then thought that perhaps that was a bit too generous to higher earners, so we introduced an annual cap and a lifetime cap. Quite why we needed both, I do not know. If we want to limit how much tax relief we give people, we could choose one of the two and still get to the right answer. The Government have now chosen the annual approach rather than the lifetime approach. The problem is that that does not help people whose earnings are not consistent. If someone is earning a relatively high amount at age 25 and then keeps earning it, that system will work very well for them. If someone starts a business that struggles in the early years and they cannot pay themselves a big salary or make big pension contributions, but then finally it is successful and they sell it and make a lot of money, under this new regime they would not be able to put that much in their pension because they would only be allowed to put in 60 grand a year. I think we could have chosen a higher lifetime allowance and not bothered with the annual allowance. That would have achieved a similar outcome, but we have not done that.
To complicate things further, we have decided that if people earn too much, we will start taking their annual allowance off them completely, meaning that they will be able to put next to nothing in a pension scheme. That does not strike me as being a pensions tax regime that incentivises people to save money in the way we want them to or to use it in their retirement. Effectively, as soon as people hit 57, that gives them a tax incentive to take a lump sum before they retire. We are saying, “The more you earn, the better off you are—unless you earn too much, in which case you are being made worse off and put back to where you started.” In order to put out this particular fire, I urge the Government to step back and consider what they are trying to achieve with the £50 billion or so a year of tax we defer—we actually lose the vast majority of it—and what they really want people to do with their pension savings. How can we use the tax regime to incentivise that and make it fair all the way around? We must come up with a coherent tax regime that drives our policy, rather than come back every couple of years, tweak things, find another fire to put out and think, “Well, it’s not quite working how we wanted, so let’s move it around,” and end up in a confused mess.
This should be a warning to us. If we have a confused mess, with different competing objectives, and we do not think about the whole system, we end up with an unintended consequence. The consequence we had was senior doctors retiring far earlier than we wanted them to because we got the pensions tax regime wrong. If we do not fix this, I suspect there will be another unforeseen consequence and we will have to come back and tweak it in another couple of years. Let us do the job properly, have a coherent regime and use the very large amount of money that we invest to drive the behaviours that we want.

Anthony Browne: I preface my comments with an absolutely fundamental underlying principle of all economic policy. Whatever we are talking about, I think this should be our first, axiomatic ground rule: whatever is right for the Leader of the Opposition should be right for everyone. There is a fundamental principle here, which is fairness, and I will come on to that.
First, though, I want to mention some of the underlying principles of the annual allowance versus the lifetime allowance, because during almost all of the previous Labour Government’s time in office, there was not a lifetime allowance. It was brought in at the tail end of the Labour Government. One of the Government’s concerns about tax relief for pensioners is the need to limit it so that we do not end up creating huge amounts of dead-weight costs for pension relief, particularly for the well paid. That is why we have an annual allowance that limits tax relief.
The lifetime allowance is not an allowance of tax relief on the amount that people pay in; it is the amount that is accrued within the pension pot. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) said, a person could be very lucky: they could have worked for Google, for example, at the beginning of their career and got some Google shares in their pension, and then done virtually nothing else for the rest of their career, but their pension would suddenly be worth £1 million because those shares have done so well. They would  then suddenly be hit by this punitive regime; they would have got virtually no tax relief at any point, but they would suddenly face this massive tax penalty.
The only reason for the lifetime limit is a tax grab by the Government to try to penalise those who have ended up with big savings pots, and as we have heard, most of those affected by it work in the public sector, because public sector pensions are so generous. I am chair of the Conservative Back-Bench Treasury committee, and my hon. Friend was previously the deputy chair. We had various hearings on this issue, and we recommended to the Government that they get rid of the lifetime savings allowance altogether. I was delighted when the Government did it, because I did not think they were going to be that brave, but there is a logical series of steps that we have to follow in order to get there.
I was delighted that the spokesman for the SNP, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman), accepted that there is such a thing as a Laffer curve that a person can be beyond the peak of—that if we tax people so highly, at some point, they just stop working. We can argue about where that peak is, but that was absolutely the point that the hon. Lady was making. Labour Members have to accept that point as well, because they are making the same point regarding NHS doctors, but it applies to everyone in every other sector as well. If we end up hitting people with taxes so high that it is not worth their while working, they stop working, whether they are in the public sector or the private sector. That principle—that there is no benefit to the country in hitting people with taxes so high that whatever sector they are in, they stop working, paying taxes and contributing to the broader economy—should be a foundation of the Government’s overall thinking on pension taxation.
The point I was making about the logical chain that leads to abolishing the whole lifetime allowance is that we already have the stand-alone personal regime for the former Director of Public Prosecutions, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer)—and not just him but his predecessors as well. We already have a separate regime for judges, which has been invoked; we now have a regime for NHS doctors that is being argued for; and as was mentioned earlier, there are various other regimes for senior police chiefs, headteachers, Government scientists, local authority senior officials, air traffic controllers—the list goes on. It is a fundamental principle of taxation policy that if we have so many exemptions in all those different categories, there is clearly something wrong with the system, and we end up with an absolutely hideous mess of tax policy. My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) pointed out the complexities of having a regime just for NHS doctors, but that same complexity would apply to every other sector if we had a separate regime for police chiefs, Government scientists, and so on and so forth—what a hideous mess. We just have to accept that the whole thing is wrong.
One might say, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen North did, that we should have a separate regime just for the public sector. I think that is absolutely, fundamentally wrong, which is a point that my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley also made. First, I just do not abide by the general principle that all those who work in the private sector are bad and all those who work in the public sector are good. By the way, 80% of employees—80%  of our voters—work in the private sector. I do not accept that those people are sufficiently bad and not moral enough that they deserve to have a specially punitive tax regime. I think it is really divisive to argue for a tax system that benefits public sector workers at the expense of private sector workers.
Private sector workers do a lot of valuable work as well. We may not like all of the different things they do, but in my constituency, they work in life sciences, developing all the drugs, the vaccines, the cures for cancer and so on. People who work in supermarkets were heroes during the pandemic, as well—they kept on working throughout the whole thing. I agree that frontline workers are unlikely to benefit from this regime, but the senior managers certainly would. It would be really divisive and corrosive in society to say, “Right, we are having one tax regime for the public sector—you are in a privileged position—and everyone else, the 80% in the private sector, has to be punished.” That is certainly not a world I would want to live in. I challenge Members to argue for that in public, because I think they would be shot down by all their voters. It would also be hideously complex, because a lot of people, including me, end up working part of their career in the public sector and part of their career in the private sector. How do we get a lifetime allowance out of that?
Fundamentally, when we follow the logic and add up all the different private sectors affected by the allowance and the private sector overall, we end up seeing that we just have to get rid of the whole thing. It would be incredibly complex and incredibly unfair if we had single sectors that benefited from the abolition of the lifetime allowance.
There is also the cost. The Treasury produces all these estimates, and we can have a big debate about its methodology and how it calculates things, but I fundamentally do not believe that a tax that is so punitive that it simply stops people from working at the peak of their skills and experience is somehow good for the overall economy. Clearly it means people work less and pay less tax. The overall cost of this measure will be far less than expected. I do not speak for the Treasury, but my understanding is that that was part of its rationale. When it looked at the costs for doing it for doctors and then at the costs for doing it for the economy overall, it realised there was not that big a difference, so it might as well go for the whole thing. The arguments against abolishing the lifetime allowance simply do not stack up. They are fundamentally unfair and economically illiterate, and the Government should push ahead with getting rid of the lifetime allowance.

Andrew Griffith: I thank my hon. Friends for their contributions to this debate. It has been brief, and I will try to keep my remarks brief, too. The Government do not want any doctor to retire early because of the way that pension taxes work, but as my hon. Friends have said, the issues that these changes address go much wider than doctors and affect workers across the economy. Nobody should find themselves having to reduce their work commitments due to interaction between their pay, their pension and the tax system. It is detrimental not just to those individuals who feel compelled to retire earlier than they would like, but also to the economy, and with them goes their often irreplaceable knowledge and experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poole (Sir Robert Syms) reminded us that today is a bad day for the purveyors of golf equipment, because this measure will allow people to come back into work. More than anything, we should be talking about the patients and others who will benefit, as well as the benefit to the economy from doctors, consultants and workers across sectors continuing to pay tax at their normal rate for those extra years.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) conjured up the image of how it would oh so wonderful to be a fly on the wall for the recent conversations between the hon. Members for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and for Ealing North (James Murray) in respect of this policy. We took our cue from the hon. Member for Ilford North, who called the cap “crazy” and said that removing it would “inevitably save lives”. I find it remarkable that that is no longer the position of the official Opposition.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) talked about the fiendishly difficult position of trying to create a special scheme. Though we take the amendment of the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) in good faith, she nevertheless conjures up an “Animal Farm” tax policy, where we hit GP practices, people who work in hospices and adult and social care, mental health consultants, those who work in air ambulances and medical charities, and give preference to NHS finance directors over long-standing public servants elsewhere in the sector. I could not make those unequal choices, and I am surprised that she and her party feel able to do so.
Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Anthony Browne), who speaks with such great knowledge on matters financial, reminded us of the fundamental principle. We could call it the Starmer principle: what is good for the Leader of the Opposition should be good for everyone.
Since this is part of the fundamental economic debate, I will conclude by reminding my hon. Friends what happened the last time Labour had its chance to put its hand on the economy: the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury left a note saying that there was no money left. [Interruption.] I have answered the questions from the hon. Member for Ealing North, and I was kind enough to write to him about the matters that he raised with me.

Kirsty Blackman: The Government have been battling manfully to attempt to retrofit a justification to a policy that was unveiled like a rabbit out of a hat on Budget day. We have been speaking about doctors’ pensions in this Chamber for years, and suddenly it turns out it is actually about air traffic controllers, senior police officers and others who were not being mentioned, because the Chancellor has made the decision to abolish the lifetime allowance. The Minister was continuing to try to pull at the heartstrings by mentioning NHS doctors and consultants in every second sentence as if they are the only ones who will benefit from the £1 billion tax cut that is being made, and as if we should all support this change because it is for our NHS heroes, but actually it is not just for our NHS heroes.
The Government have chosen to implement this in the widest, most ham-fisted way. If the current policy of the lifetime allowance was so bad, why did it take the Conservative Government 10 years to change it? Why did it take them so long to decide this was so horrific  that they had to get rid of it? Why, if they cannot possibly have a scheme that allows for one profession or one public service to be treated differently, did they allow the scheme for judges to continue for such a long period of time? If that was so discriminatory and cannot possibly be replicated for NHS doctors, why have they only realised this in the last few months? Their arguments do not stack up. Therefore, we will do what we intended to do, which is to press amendment 21 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 45, Noes 292.
Question accordingly negatived.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

The Committee divided: Ayes 293, Noes 218.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Clause 18 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 19 to 25 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

New Clause 5 - Review of alternatives to the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge

“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act being passed—
(a) conduct a review of the impact of the abolition of the lifetime allowance charge introduced by section 18 of this Act and other changes to tax-free pension allowances introduced by sections 19 to 23 of this Act, and
(b) lay before the House of Commons a report setting out recommendations arising from the review.
(2) The review must make recommendations on how the policies referred to in subsection (1)(a) could be replaced with an alternative approach that provided equivalent benefits only for NHS doctors.”—(James Murray.)
This new clause requires the Chancellor to review the impact of the tax-free pension allowance changes and to recommend an alternative approach targeted at NHS doctors.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee divided: Ayes 218, Noes 294.
Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 278 - Charge on exceptional generation receipts

Eleanor Laing: I am progressing as slowly as I can, in the hope that the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), who tabled amendment 8, or indeed one of her colleagues, might appear in the Chamber. I do not think I can go any slower, as I would have to chastise myself for wasting the Committee’s time.
It must be said that I have given the Liberal Democrats as much time as possible to move amendment 8, so we will instead move directly to clause stand part.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 8, page 197, line 35, after “costs” insert “and relevant investment expenditure”.
This amendment is linked to Amendment 9.
Amendment 9, page 198, line 3, at end insert—
“Where the generating undertaking is a generator of renewable energy, determine the amount of relevant investment expenditure and also subtract that amount.”
This amendment, together with Amendments 8, 10 and 11 would allow generators of renewable energy to offset money re-invested in renewable projects against the levy.
Amendment 10, in clause 279, page 199, line 13, at end insert—
“a “generator of renewable energy” means—
(a) a company, other than a member of a group, that operates, or
(b) a group of companies that includes at least one member who operates a generating station generating electricity from a renewable source within the meaning of section 32M of the Energy Act 1989;
“relevant investment expenditure” means any profits of a generator of renewable energy that have been re-invested in renewable projects;”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 9.
Amendment 11, page 199, line 18, at end insert—
“a “renewable project” is any project involving the generation of electricity from a renewable source within the meaning of section 32M of the Energy Act 1989;”
This amendment is linked to Amendment 9.
Clauses 279 to 312 stand part.
New clause 11—Assessment of the impact of the electricity generator levy—
“(1) The Chancellor of the Exchequer must, within six months of this Act coming into force, publish an assessment of the impact of the electricity generator levy on investment in renewable energy in the UK.
(2) The assessment must include a comparative assessment of the impact of the energy (oil and gas) profits levy and the investment allowance on overall investment in UK upstream petroleum production.
(3) The assessment must include an evaluation of the impact of the electricity generator levy on the United Kingdom’s ability to meet its climate commitments, including—
(a) the target for 2050 set out in section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008, and
(b) the duty under section 4 of the Climate Change Act 2008 to ensure that the net UK carbon account for a budgetary period does not exceed the carbon budget.”
This new clause would require the Government to conduct an assessment of the impact of the Electricity Generator Levy on investment in renewables and the delivery of the UK’s climate targets, including a comparative assessment of the impact of the Energy Profits Levy and the investment allowance, on investment in oil and gas production.

James Cartlidge: It is always a pleasure to appear so early and unexpectedly. This grouping is about the electricity generator levy. Before I address the specific clauses, here is a reminder of why we are debating this ultimately exceptional new tax.
We have to remember that Putin’s weaponisation of gas supplies to Europe has pushed energy prices to record levels. In 2022, UK wholesale energy prices rose to eight times their historical level. Despite recent falls, gas prices, which currently drive the market price for electricity, remain at twice their pre-pandemic level, which means that the price achieved by some electricity generators has risen considerably, driven by natural gas prices.
The Government have absorbed a substantial portion of the price increase through our generous support for households and businesses, which is why we have chosen to capture the windfall profits of oil and gas extraction with the energy profits levy. The Government are now introducing an electricity generator levy. The EGL is designed to capture only the exceptional receipts that electricity generators make, by taxing only the amounts above their normal return while preserving the incentive to invest in the capacity we need.
Clauses 278 to 280 detail the calculation of the levy, which will be applied at a 45% rate on revenues above a benchmark price for UK generation activities. The benchmark price of £75 per megawatt-hour is set approximately 1.5 times higher than the pre-crisis average. The benchmark price will be indexed to inflation from April 2024. To ensure that the levy applies only to large commercial operations with the capacity to administer the tax, the EGL includes an annual generation output threshold of 50 GWh, which is equivalent to approximately 15,000 domestic rooftop solar panels. A £10 million allowance provides further protection for smaller businesses from undue administrative burden and reduces the impact of the levy for those in scope. The levy applies from 1 January 2023 and will end on 31 March 2028, although colleagues will appreciate that the design of the levy is such that, should prices return to normal, no tax will be due. To ensure that the tax does not have unintended consequences, clause 279 excludes certain technologies.
Clauses 281 to 285 provide definitions for in-scope generation and the calculation of exceptional receipts. As I have outlined, the benchmark price has been set so that the EGL applies only to revenues from the sale of electricity at prices higher than the pre-crisis expectations of generators and investors. The levy applies to receipts from power sold on to the grid from wind, solar, biomass, nuclear and energy-from-waste technology. It applies to revenues that generators actually receive, taking account of contracts which might involve selling power over a longer period for a stable price. Certain types of transaction are excluded, such as “private wire” not sold via the grid, as well as power sold under contracts for difference with the Low Carbon Contracts Company, which is the Government’s flagship scheme supporting investment in renewables. Clauses 283 to 285 set out provisions for the recognition of exceptional costs related to the acquisition of fuel and from revenue-sharing arrangements. These provisions reflect the fact that for some generators fuel acquisition costs will have increased as a result of the energy crisis.
Clauses 286 to 300 deal with detailed arrangements for various structures of business operating in electricity generation. Owing to the size and complexity of projects involved, there are a number of common structures for generation undertakings. Those often involve large group companies, sometimes with significant minority shareholders. Others involve a number of businesses  forming a joint venture. For example, a company specialising in offshore wind might go into business with a finance provider to deliver a large and complex project, sharing the revenues and risk between them. There are rules to treat these so-called “joint ventures” as stand-alone generation undertakings for the purposes of the EGL. These clauses ensure that businesses with in-scope revenues pay an appropriate share of EGL liability.
Clauses 301 to 305 provide rules for the payment of EGL. The EGL is a temporary measure that has been carefully designed to minimise the administrative burden on businesses. Firms within scope of the levy will pay it as part of their corporation tax return, albeit that EGL is a separate and new tax. The provisions for paying corporation tax are therefore applied here, including in respect of the supply of information, the collection of tax due and the right of appeal.
I turn briefly to the final clauses on the EGL, clauses 306 to 312. Those provisions ensure that the EGL applies to in-scope revenues from generation activities regardless of company type. Appropriate anti-avoidance rules are also included. Clause 309 details the interaction between EGL and corporation tax for accounting purposes, including the fact that EGL is not deductible from profits for corporation tax purposes.
In conclusion, these provisions ensure that, where electricity generators are realising exceptional receipts as a result of the current crisis, they make a fair and proportionate contribution to the support that the Government have provided to households and businesses. Importantly, the levy is designed to apply only to the excess portion of those revenues, in order to maintain the incentive to produce low-carbon electricity. This is in addition to the Government’s extensive support for investment in UK electricity generation. I will of course respond to proposed amendments, assuming that we hear about them, in the debate. In the meantime, I ask that clauses 278 to 312 stand part of the Bill.

Abena Oppong-Asare: It is a pleasure to speak for the Opposition on the clauses relating to the electricity generator levy, a policy that was first announced in the autumn statement of 2022. Clause 278 introduces a new 45% charge on businesses that generate electricity in the UK. Specifically, it will be charged on exceptional earnings related to soaring energy prices. Extraordinary profits are defined in the Bill as receipts from wholesale electricity sold at an average price in excess of a benchmark price of £75 per megawatt-hour over an accounting period. Clause 280 specifies that this benchmark will be adjusted in line with the consumer prices index from April 2024. Companies liable for the levy are those that produce more than 50 GWh annually, generate electricity in the UK from nuclear, renewable or biomass sources, and are connected to a local distribution network or to the national grid. The levy will apply only to exceptional receipts exceeding £10 million.
The clauses under discussion also set out in detail methods of calculation and procedures for joint ventures. I note that the Government have estimated that the levy will raise approximately £14 billion over the next five  years and will help to fund public services and support for households and businesses with increased energy bills.
Although Labour welcomes this move and will not oppose the inclusion of these clauses in the Finance Bill, I have to say that I have followed the Government’s developments in this area with dismay. Back in January 2022, Labour announced that it would introduce a windfall tax on oil and gas producers. We announced in August 2022 that we would cap energy bills. In the same month, we also announced that we would scrap extra charges for those on pre-payment meters. It is Labour that has been developing policies to tackle the energy crisis and support consumers and businesses that are suffering as a result of the Government’s inaction. Thirteen years of failed Conservative energy policy have resulted in higher bills, energy insecurity, and the UK losing the global race for jobs.
The British people are sick and tired of soaring energy bills and of our energy system being so exposed to the whims of dictators such as Putin. The British people want long-term solutions to cut bills for good, and it is Labour that is offering those solutions. The clauses for discussion today and the detail that the Government have given so far, still leave some questions unanswered. Will the Minister explain what measures the Government will take to ensure that this levy does not hamper investment in the renewables sector, given that low-carbon electricity generation is subject to the levy.
The Government’s botched windfall tax on oil and gas companies comes alongside an investment allowance, but this levy does not. Does that say anything about the level of importance that the Government assign to the renewables sector, the importance of investment in net zero, and the role that they see Britain playing in the green race? Given the importance of the renewables sector in reaching our net zero targets, I am sure that the Minister will agree that it is important that the measures in these clauses are monitored and evaluated. Will he elaborate a little as to how the electricity generator levy will be monitored and what cross-departmental work the Treasury will be doing alongside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero in this area?
To conclude, the Opposition have real concerns about the Government’s energy policy. Although we support the electricity generator levy, we do have some serious questions for the Government. We need to see greater security detail on these to give the sector certainty and to ensure that these measures do not stifle investment in renewables.

Caroline Lucas: I am delighted to have the best part of an hour and a half to talk about the electricity generator levy—[Interruption.] No, not really.
I rise to speak in support of new clause 11, which would require the Government to conduct an assessment of the impact of the electricity generator levy on investment in renewable energy in the UK, exactly picking up on the point that was made by the Official Opposition just a moment ago.
In his speech in the spring Budget, just one month ago, the Chancellor proudly declared:
“We are world leaders in renewable energy”.—[Official Report, 15 March 2023; Vol. 729, c. 840.]
Since then, the Government have published their latest energy security plan, which points to “low-cost renewables” as being “central” to their goal of Britain having among the cheapest wholesale electricity prices in Europe. The strategy is absolutely right in that regard; the International Energy Agency’s “World Energy Outlook” makes clear that, in the context of the energy price crisis, countries with a higher share of renewables also had lower electricity prices. In the words of the IEA’s executive director, Dr Fatih Birol:
“The environmental case for clean energy needed no reinforcement, but the economic arguments in favour of cost-competitive and affordable clean technologies are now stronger—and so too is the energy security case.”
In light of all that, it seems extremely perverse—to put it mildly—that, rather than the Government doing everything they can to unleash our abundant renewables, their current policy is stifling the investment we desperately need. A recent report by Energy UK warns that the investment climate for renewables has deteriorated significantly in recent months due to a combination of factors, including what it describes as “poorly designed windfall taxes. The report also states that, without urgent action to address concerns and prevent investment from moving elsewhere, the UK risks losing out on £62 billion-worth of investment this decade, which could also lead to a shortfall of 54 GW of potential solar and wind capacity, which would be enough to power every single UK home.
RenewableUK has criticised the Government for continuing to develop policies that,
“increase uncertainty and dampen investment”,
with the electricity generator levy in particular damaging investor confidence and increasing costs. While it is right that companies are taxed fairly on their excess profits, hampering our vital renewable energy industry when a expansion is essential to deliver on our climate targets is reckless.
The Government’s own plans include increasing our offshore capacity by four times over current levels by 2030 and solar by five times by 2035. My amendment would therefore also require an assessment to cover the impact of the electricity generator levy on the delivery of those UK climate targets, including net zero by 2050, and on our legally binding carbon budgets.
Most egregious of the complaints laid at the door of the EGL is that it is more punitive than the tax and relief regime for oil and gas companies. The sector has highlighted three key differences between the regimes. First, the electricity generator levy is a tax on revenue rather than overall profit, as with the energy profits levy, which results in an above-the-line cost of doing business rather than a reduction in profit.
Secondly, the electricity generator levy is not deductible from corporation tax, whereas the energy profits levy is an extension of an existing scheme. That leads to higher effective tax rates for electricity generators than is currently the case for oil and gas companies.
Thirdly and most importantly, oil and gas companies are eligible for vast and frankly obscene subsidies through the investment allowance that renewables do not have access to. If we add to all that the decarbonisation allowance, which means that the taxpayer is paying oil and gas companies to decarbonise—even though, in their  own words, the companies already have more cash than they know what to do with, thanks to their vast windfall profits—it seems to me that the Government’s approach is misguided.
The approach means that, in the case of a decarbonisation allowance, companies are eligible for more tax relief if they are putting a wind turbine on an oil platform than if they are installing a wind turbine to feed into the grid. Put simply, we should be incentivising investment in renewables to power homes, not rigs. The amount of power it takes to drill for oil and gas is comparable to the total amount of power generated by offshore wind, or enough power to generate electricity for every house in Wales.
That should be paid for by the very oil and gas companies that are reaping such huge profits, not by the taxpayer. Surely the Chancellor and Treasury team can see that, when we need to urgently get off fossil fuels to secure a liveable future, it is madness to subsidise oil and gas extraction at all, let alone at the expense of renewable energy, as the Government are doing.
My amendment would require a comparative assessment of the impact of the energy profits levy, including the investment allowance, on investment in oil and gas production versus the regime the Government are proposing for renewables. Renewable energy companies have rightly called for a level playing field with oil and gas, but, in the face of an escalating climate emergency, we should be going further than that and responding to the ambition of other countries. Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, for example, offers $216 billion-worth of tax credits to companies investing in clean energy and transport.
Finally, I record my support for the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), which would allow generators of renewable energy to offset money reinvested in renewable projects against the levy. Yet failing that, surely the Chancellor cannot object simply to having, at the very least, clarity on the impact of this policy. That is exactly what my new clause would do, and I very much hope that the Treasury team will consider it.
The Government are fond of pointing to the fact that almost 40% of our electricity is now generated from renewables, but if we are to fully decarbonise our electricity system, we need the right incentives, a supportive policy framework, an improved grid fit for the 21st century, and a planning system that does not hold renewables back. We simply cannot rely on what the Chancellor called a “clean energy miracle”. I very much hope that the Government will take new clause 11 seriously.

James Cartlidge: It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I hope that she will not take it as a lack of respect if I say that it is probably a good thing that she did not go for the full one-and-a-half hours, but she made important points to which I will respond. Both she and the Labour Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare), asked about the impact on investment.
New clause 11, in the name of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, specifically proposes that the Government publish within six months an assessment of the impact of the EGL on investment in renewables,  and a comparison with the impact of the energy profits levy. First, I am bound to say, in the immortal words of the Treasury, that we keep all policies under review. We will, in the course of normal tax policymaking, return to make an assessment of the EGL’s impact at a suitable time. On investment specifically, we have to appreciate that this country has led the way in securing investment in renewables. Bloomberg New Energy Finance data shows that the UK has secured nearly £200 billion of public and private investment into low-carbon industries since 2010. Generators have received to date almost £6 billion in price support from the contracts for difference scheme for low-carbon electricity generation. CfDs have contracted a total of 26 GW of low-carbon generation, including around 20 GW of offshore wind. I hope that we are all proud of the result, which is that we as a country now have the largest array of offshore wind in Europe. Going forward, we have committed £160 million for the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme to support floating offshore wind, and up to £20 billion for early deployment of carbon capture, usage and storage.
Our record to date is also crucial. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion spoke about the Inflation Reduction Act and the steps being taken in the US. Of course, that is important, and we watch what is happening there very carefully, but it is worth reflecting on the fact that, as she quite rightly said, about 40% of our electricity came from renewables last year, while in the US that figure was about 20%.
There are two key things about the EGL and investment. First, we have to remember that the levy does not apply to the contracts for difference, which have been hugely successful in securing renewable energy investment and will cover the mainstay of future deployment in this country in relation to renewables. Secondly, the threshold price of £75 per megawatt-hour is exceptional; it is about 50% higher than the average over the past decade. The extraordinary energy prices, driven by Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, would not have been foreseen by investors when they committed capital to the building of wind and solar farms—they would not have foreseen such a huge increase.
The hon. Lady, whom I respect, has made her key point about oil and gas consistently; in many ways, the Labour party’s criticism of our investment allowance, which it calls a loophole, is the same point. We differ in our view. In the world today, we face a most profound energy crisis. It is a strategic energy crisis. We look at Russia, which has weaponised energy, and we ask ourselves: “Is it the right moment to be turning our back on our own domestic supply of oil and gas?” We need it. Of course, we are on the path to net zero—this country has cut its emissions more than any other nation in the G7; we are making that difference—but the journey is a long one. In that time, we will need oil and gas, which make up about three quarters of our energy demand when all transport is included. Unless the hon. Lady and the Labour party think that we should stop using oil and gas tomorrow, what they are really arguing for is simply to use more imported oil and gas.

Caroline Lucas: I am so fed up with this argument from the Government, because nobody is talking about turning off oil and gas tomorrow. We are talking about  whether the world can sustain more new oil and gas, particularly from a country such as the UK, which is so blessed with alternatives. We were also one of the first countries to industrialise, so we have a greater responsibility to take a real lead on this. That is why the Government should invest in alternatives, renewables and energy efficiency, and listen to the IEA, which says that there is no space for new oil and gas.

James Cartlidge: As I have said, I respect the hon. Lady’s position, but the point is that if we were to have no further investment, the North Sea Transition Authority estimates that we would lose about 1.5 billion barrels-worth of output. There is no realistic estimate that we would not use an equivalent amount. In other words, we would simply import it, and if we import gas, that means 50% more emissions. Most importantly—and I feel very strongly about this—we would undermine our energy security. Even yesterday, representatives of the Kremlin were still talking about weaponising energy. If we have learned one thing, surely it is that we have to be realistic and pragmatic. We want to support the UK economy. Above all, we have a balanced approach. We are on the journey to net zero. We have cut our emissions more than any other country in the G7, and we continue to back renewables.

Caroline Lucas: Will the Minister give way?

James Cartlidge: I will take one final point and then wrap up.

Caroline Lucas: The Minister is very generous in giving way again. I simply want to make the very obvious point that simply because oil and gas are extracted from the North sea, there is no guarantee that they will be used by people in the UK. They get sold on global markets at the highest price, so the argument that this is the best way to reach energy security is flawed. The best way to reach energy security is through introducing a mass energy efficiency and home insulation upgrade system, which the Government have not done; through more on electrification of transport, which they have not done; and through investing in renewables, which they are not doing enough of, as we have been saying this afternoon.

James Cartlidge: This is entirely true, but of course selling on the international market means that, through our balance of trade, we have an economy where we can afford to import. It is about comparative advantage.
As I have described, the Government are providing extensive support for renewables in order to decarbonise our power system and meet our ambitious net zero commitments. The EGL has been carefully designed with those objectives in mind. I therefore urge the Committee to reject the amendments and to agree that clauses 278 to 312 stand part of the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 278 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 279 to 312 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 27 - Power to clarify tax treatment of devolved social security benefitsClause 27

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Eleanor Laing: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause 47 stand part.
Amendment 25, in clause 48, page 39, line 32, at end insert—
“(aa) section (exemption: Scotch Whisky),”.
This is a paving amendment for NC9, which would exempt Scotch Whisky from the increase in duty on spirits.
Clause 48 stand part.
Amendment 7, in schedule 7, page 334, line 18, leave out “£31.64” and insert “£28.74”.
That schedule 7 be the Seventh schedule to the Bill.
Clause 50 stand part.
That schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 51 to 54 stand part.
That schedule 9 be the Ninth schedule to the Bill.
Clauses 55 to 60 stand part.
New clause 9—Exemption: Scotch Whisky—
“(1) The rate of duty on spirits shown in Schedule 7 shall not apply in respect of Scotch Whisky.
(2) The rate of duty in respect of Scotch Whisky shall continue to be the rate that applied before this Act came into force.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “Scotch Whisky” has the meaning given in regulation 3 of the Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009 (S.I. 2009, No. 2890).”
This new clause would exempt Scotch Whisky, as defined in the Scotch Whisky Regulations 2009, from the increase in duty on spirits

James Cartlidge: We have had pensions and energy, and we conclude with alcohol, and of course one other minor matter is covered. We are specifically debating clauses 27, 47, 48 and 50 to 60, and schedules 7 to 9, which cover powers to clarify the tax treatment of devolved social security benefits—that is the measure not relating to alcohol—as well as the change to alcohol duty and the introduction of two new reliefs for alcohol duty.
Clause 27 introduces a new power to enable the tax treatment of new payments or new top-up welfare payments introduced by the devolved Administrations to be confirmed as social security income by statutory instrument. The changes made by clause 27 will allow the UK Government to confirm the tax treatment of new payments or new top-up payments introduced by the devolved Administrations within the tax year, rather than their being subject to the UK parliamentary timetable.
I will now turn to the main issue of alcohol duty, and specifically clauses 47 and 48, which set out the charging of alcohol duty, and schedule 7. In line with our plan to manage the UK economy responsibly, we are reverting to the standard approach of uprating the previously published reformed rates and structures by the retail price index, while increasing the value of draught relief to ensure that the duty on an average pint of beer or lower-strength cider served on tap in a pub does not increase. Most importantly, these clauses introduce the Government’s historic alcohol duty reforms: the biggest  overhaul of the alcohol duty system in over 140 years, made possible by our departure from the European Union.
The current alcohol duty system is complex and outdated. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that our system of alcohol taxation is “a mess”; the Institute of Economic Affairs has said that it “defies common sense”; and the World Health Organisation has said that countries such as the UK that follow the EU alcohol rules are
“unable to implement tax systems that are optimal from the perspective of public health.”
As such, at Budget 2020, the Government announced that they would take forward a review of alcohol duty. This legislation is the culmination of that review, and makes changes to the overall duty structure for alcohol. It moves us from individual, product-specific duties and bands to a single duty on all alcoholic products and a standardised series of tax bands based on alcoholic strength.
The clauses we are debating today repeal and replace, with variations, the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979 and sections 4 and 5 of the Finance Act 1995. Specifically, clause 47 provides for alcohol duty to be charged on alcoholic products, clause 48 explains where the rates of alcohol duty can be found—that is, in schedule 7—and schedule 7 itself provides the standard or full rates of alcohol duty to be applied to alcoholic products. This radical simplification of the alcohol duty system reduces the number of duty bands from 15 to six, and has only been made possible since leaving the EU. Now, thanks to the Windsor framework, I can confirm that these reforms can now also be implemented in Northern Ireland. The new alcohol duty structures, rates and reliefs will take effect from 1 August this year, which brings me to the new reliefs.

Bob Stewart: As a member of the Campaign for Real Ale, may I ask the Minister whether that means beer that is not very strong will come down in price?

James Cartlidge: That is an excellent question from my right hon. Friend. As he will appreciate, there is obviously a difference between the duty and the price—we control the duty. As I am about to explain, we are doing everything possible, and I hope he will be interested, because I know that members of CAMRA have great fondness and support for our brilliant pubs up and down the country.
The first of the two new reliefs, which is our new draught relief, applies to alcoholic products under 8.5% alcohol by volume intended to be sold on draught. This draught relief is historic, because as Members will remember, in the EU, we had a thing called the EU structures directive. Under that directive, as a country, we could of course vary our alcohol duty—we could increase it, decrease it or whatever—but what we could not do was charge differential duty between the on trade, meaning pubs, and the off trade, meaning supermarkets, retail and so on. For the first time, we will have that differential draught relief, and I am pleased to confirm that in the Budget, we brought forward two very important measures in relation to that relief. It had been anticipated that we would set the draught relief at 5%, but the Chancellor confirmed in the Budget that it would be  increased to 9.2%. I can therefore confirm to my right hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) that as a result of that increase in the draught relief, when the new system comes in this August, the duty on the average pint of beer or lower-strength cider that people buy in pubs will still be frozen.
More importantly, we have issued our Brexit pubs guarantee. As I say, this change would not have been possible in the EU, and we are using this opportunity to send a very powerful message to our pubs: to guarantee that from August onwards, the duty on a pint in a pub will always be lower than the duty on the equivalent in a supermarket.

Mark Jenkinson: I thank the Minister for giving way. I just wondered whether an impact assessment was done on the benefits of such a change to the on trade.

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend asks an excellent question, and I will be more than happy to write to him setting out more detail on the benefits, but I hope he agrees that the key point is this: we in this House all know that pubs suffered terribly in the pandemic, if we are honest. We literally legislated to close them, obviously for a very good reason—to support public health and stop the spread of that terrible disease—but the fact is that doing so was costly to pubs, so we had to support them. In addition, since then they have seen their energy bills surge on the back of the invasion of Ukraine. We want to do what we can to support them.

David Evennett: Pubs are so important in our communities. My constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford find their pubs pivotal to the social environment. We have a very good micropub in Crayford, the Penny Farthing, which I occasionally go to at lunchtime. My hon. Friend makes an important point. We need these pubs. They are centre stage for our local communities. They do a good social job, and also they are a safe place for people to go to. What the Government are doing is commendable.

James Cartlidge: We have had strong support from public health groups for the differential duty, because the evidence shows that is healthier to drink in a social environment than privately. That is another significant benefit.

Alistair Carmichael: rose—

James Cartlidge: This is a popular area of the debate. I give way.

Alistair Carmichael: I think the Minister has a sound case in relation to what the Government have done on beer duty. What is less clear, however, is why they have chosen to treat spirits so differently. Spirits are also an important part of the on trade. What will the impact be on the spirits trade from the differential that the Minister has now baked into the duty system?

James Cartlidge: There are spirits that will benefit from the differential—not spirits served from what I think are called optics, but spirits served on tap. There are mixers served on tap that will benefit from a more  generous differential duty. On spirits, I am more than happy to set out further detail when I respond to the relevant amendments, because I think they are specifically focused on Scotch whisky, and I understand the concerns there.
I just want to finish my point on our Brexit pubs guarantee. Just to underline what we are doing, we are giving pubs a new permanent competitive advantage. We are levelling the playing field against supermarkets. Following the difficult times that pubs have had with the pandemic and higher energy costs, that hopefully gives them a new narrative for their communities with more positive times to look forward to ahead. That is what we want for our pubs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) said, they are so important for our communities and our economy. We continue to do everything possible to back the great British pub.

Bob Stewart: It seems that we will finish early tonight, in which case I am going straight to the Jolly Woodman in my constituency. I hope I will be able to tell it that the price of its beer will come down. Is there any possibility that there can be a differentiation to encourage real ale, speaking as a member of the Campaign for Real Ale?

James Cartlidge: I hope my right hon. Friend is welcomed with open arms in the Jolly Woodman, having given it fulsome promotion. I might make do with Strangers Bar downstairs. Real ales will benefit from the differential duty, particularly those served on tap. There are lower rates for those with lower alcohol by volume, which will hopefully encourage innovation. I hope that will support our craft brewers, not least with the second relief, which replaces and extends small brewers relief with a small producer relief applying to alcoholic products under 8.5% ABV produced by those making less than 4,500 hectolitres of alcohol per year. That will be precisely those sorts of craft brewers.
Clauses 50 to 53 introduce the new draught relief and clauses 54 to 60 provide for the new small producer relief. Taking each clause in turn quickly—I will canter through them—clause 50 explains that alcohol duty is charged on qualifying draught products at the reduced rates shown in schedule 8. Clause 51 sets out the eligibility criteria for draught relief. Clause 52 defines repackaging for the purposes of draught relief and introduces a penalty for repackaging that is not authorised. Clause 53 provides assessment and penalty consequences for a person repackaging qualifying draught products in a way not allowed under clause 52. Clause 54 provides for discounted rates to be charged on all small producer alcoholic products and explains how the discounted rate is calculated. Clause 55 defines small producer alcoholic products.
Clause 56 introduces the criteria for determining whether premises used to produce alcoholic products are small production premises. Clause 57 explains the alcohol production amount used for the purposes of determining eligibility for the duty discount and calculating the duty discount for small producer alcoholic products. Clause 58 sets out the circumstances, other than not meeting the eligibility conditions, in which alcoholic products are not small producer alcoholic products. I hope hon. Members are all following. Clause 59 and schedule 9 set out how to calculate the duty discount  used to determine the discounted rate for small producer alcoholic products, and clause 60 allows the commissioners to assess alcohol duty that is due in circumstances where the small producer rate has not been applied correctly. The remaining clauses concerning alcohol duty will be debated in the Public Bill Committee.
Each of the clauses I have discussed will help us to reform the tax system. On devolved social security benefits, clause 27 will provide the Government with the flexibility to confirm the tax treatment within the tax year, rather than be subject to the UK parliamentary timetable. The alcohol duty clauses replace the existing nonsensical alcohol duty system, initially created by a complex web of EU law, with a more consistent, simplified approach to taxing alcohol according to its strength. This will help to better meet our public health objectives and is in line with this Government’s commitment to tax simplification. We are also introducing two new reliefs to help businesses grow and thrive, not least to support our precious pubs.

Daisy Cooper: The Minister has talked about the Government’s ambition to simplify the tax system, but he will be aware that the most adversely affected businesses are the port and sherry traders, which will feel the force of a full £20 million increase, despite fortified wine being only 3% of the total wine trade. They have asked for this process to be simplified further by taxing fortified wine at the midpoint of 17.5% ABV. Is that something the Government might still consider?

James Cartlidge: It is a fair point from the hon. Lady. I do think this is a significant simplification. We are moving from 15 bands to six. I would love it to be 15 to one, but unfortunately “Fifteen to One” is going to remain the name of a quiz programme. If she looks carefully at the new rates—I am more than happy to share a copy of the bands with her—she will see that it is a significant simplification. It provides many benefits to the wine trade, particularly with our differential duty and the small producers relief.
To conclude, I will be happy to respond to the amendments on Scotch whisky at the end, but in the meantime I commend to the Committee clauses 27, 47, 48 and 50 to 60, and schedules 7 to 9.

Eleanor Laing: I call Alistair Carmichael.

Alistair Carmichael: Thank you, Dame Eleanor. It is perhaps not a novelty to see you back in the Chair, but it is still a great pleasure none the less. I am delighted to serve with you in control.
I rise to speak to amendment 7, which stands in my name and those of my hon. Friends. In doing so, I should indicate at this stage that it is my intention to divide the Committee and establish opinion on it. The effect of amendment 7 would be to freeze the level of duty on the production of spirits. The Minister kept saying these are Scotch whisky amendments. He maybe knows me too well, but I would readily concede that many other spirits will be affected by this, and they are just as important. I think the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Kirsty Blackman) will speak to her amendments, which do relate specifically to Scotch whisky, but I have  had discussions with her, and she tells me that SNP Members are in fact minded to support our amendment, instead of pursuing their own. She will doubtless speak for herself, as she always does, later in the debate.
When we consider that 70% of the gin produced in this country is, in fact, produced in Scotland—my constituency has no fewer than four gin distilleries, and we find that situation replicated across Scotland—the impact of rises in duty are not just going to be felt by areas that produce Scotch whisky. We have also seen a number of distilleries appearing in recent times—a much smaller number, but it is significant none the less—producing rum. So it is important that we have a coherent strategy for the excise duty on these products. The difficulty I have with what I hear from the Treasury Minister is that it is difficult to discern exactly what the Government are trying to achieve in this Budget.
Scotch whisky in particular is very important to the UK as part of our manufacturing base. Indeed, it is an enormously important part of our export portfolio. It is also critical for many of the most economically fragile communities that can be found around the highlands and islands of Scotland. I was born and brought up on Islay, and people will know the importance of the whisky industry, and in recent years the growth of whisky tourism to that economy. In my constituency we have Highland Park and Scapa. Occasionally other interests are declared, but we still have only two producing distilleries. They are very important to our local community, not just in relation to the jobs they provide directly, but because of the spin-offs—the visitor centre, the merchandising, and the visitors that those distilleries bring to the community. Whisky tourism is enormously important, and it is it enormously important that the whisky industry has confidence that the Government are on their side. I am afraid that the signals we have seen from this Government in recent months have been, if I am to be kind to them, mixed at best.
The Chancellor was right to say in December that there would be a freeze on duty. We welcomed that, as I am sure did others. Three months later, to then turn around and whack a duty increase on spirits in the region of something just north of 10%, makes us wonder what the Government are trying to achieve. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland, along with Danny Alexander, who was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, we argued successfully for a 2% duty cut. In 2015, the Red Book of the day said that that would bring with it a reduction in the amount of duty received and revenue brought in, but in point of fact we brought in more revenue with a lower level of duty than had been the case before it was cut.
If we are trying to do something that will bring in more money to the Treasury, surely a duty freeze, at the very least, should be on offer. Indeed, Treasury data illustrates the point well, because a recent history of cuts and duty freezes has actually had a beneficial effect on revenue brought in. For some reason, we now seem determined to introduce a duty increase that will have an inflationary impact, and for some of the most economically fragile communities in the country that will have the effect of stymying growth.
The position laid out by the Minister on sales of beer was exceptionally interesting. He will be aware that spirits account for one third of the serves of alcohol consumed in this country, but less than one fifth of the  units consumed. On the other hand, beer has 60% of the units consumed but accounts for less than 50% of the serves. It is clear that the effect of this measure will be inflationary and have a detrimental effect on the economic growth that we are all supposed to be pursuing.
The Chief Medical Officer tells us that we should safely consume 14 units per week—I think I have read this correctly—per week. If we are to consume 14 units of cider, we pay £1.13 in tax. If we consume 14 units of wine, we pay £3.36 in tax. But if we consume 14 units of spirits, we pay £4.06 in tax. To put it another way, Scotch whisky, and spirits as a whole, are taxed 256% higher than cider, and 16% higher than wine.
It was presumably for that reason that the Secretary of State for Scotland is reported in The Scotsman as having argued against it. This was not some source quoted as saying that, but the Secretary of State himself. He said that he was disappointed the Chancellor acted in the way he did. I think we can all very much share the disappointment of the Secretary of State for Scotland. For the avoidance of doubt, I did let him know that I would be referring to him in the course of my speech. Our real disappointment, however, is that, having publicly disagreed with the Government on the matter, I have a strong suspicion that if it is put to a Division he will be in the other Lobby. It is all very well to wring your hands, but if, when the moment comes and the Division bells ring, you are not prepared to do what you know is right for such an important industry in Scotland in so many of our communities, then I feel we are, as politicians, failing in our duty to our constituents and those whom we seek to serve.
We heard a lot from the Minister about the harmonisation of duties, but the House has heard the truth of the matter. The position in relation to on-sales consumption of beer will widen the gap. It simply makes no sense. If the Minister can answer no other question when he comes to respond, can he answer this: what strategy are the Government seeking to deliver by bringing forward a duty increase in excess of 10%? I do not see it. It flies in the face of the Treasury’s own data and contradicts it. It is difficult to understand what the purpose of it is, other than simply an attitude that says, “Well, you’ve had it good for a few years now, so we’re going to treat you differently and it’s time for you to take some of the pain.” An industry as important as the production of spirits deserves rather better consideration from the Treasury.

Jamie Stone: I rise in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), who speaks for my constituents as much as he does his own.
I want to make two simple points. First, the distilleries in my constituency—I could name them all, but I have done that before in this place—are part and parcel of each community in which they are based, and they are important to the people in those communities. They see them as their own. As my right hon. Friend said, the jobs they provide in some of the most sparsely populated and economically fragile parts of Scotland are absolutely crucial. Inver House, a company that owns two distilleries in my constituency, Balblair in Edderton and Old Pulteney  in Wick, sponsors the Wick Gala each year. As something that epitomises the culture of Caithness, I would honestly recommend that all right hon. and hon. Members come to Wick and see the Wick Gala—it is something they will not forget. That company is a part of it and makes it happen, which is incredibly important. In my own home town of Tain, Glenmorangie, now owned by the French company Louis Vuitton, has for a number of years pretty well paid for the Tain highland games. Again, I say to Members: come see them and enjoy. So the distilleries are a part of the community and what they do is crucial for the community. It is about rural jobs in sparse areas.
The second point I want to make to those on the Treasury Bench is about levelling up. Those are not the words I would have chosen, but it is a good concept to take parts of the UK that have lost out in the race and bring them up—giving them a leg up—to be equal to the richer parts of the UK. By definition, the areas where there are distilleries are very often some of the more hard-up parts of the Scottish highlands and of Scotland. If Government Members want to go about levelling up, they need to get into the parts of Britain that need help.

Alistair Carmichael: As my hon. Friend says, these are often some of the more hard-up areas of the country, but the truth of the matter is that down the years they have contributed enormously to the GDP of this country and they have the potential to do more. We are not looking for any special treatment. We are not looking for any favours or handouts. All we are looking for is a fair crack of the whip.

Jamie Stone: That is an extremely valuable point. I would bolt on to it that we have new distilleries starting up. In John O’Groats, there is a brand new one called 8 Doors. These enterprising local Caithness people have done it off their own bat. To get tourists to go to John O’Groats, we have 8 Doors, which has done it along the coast of Caithness. We have Wolfstone—I think I have that right.

Alistair Carmichael: Wolfburn.

Jamie Stone: You’re dead right—I stand corrected by my right hon. Friend. Tourists love it and it contributes a huge amount to the Exchequer. It matters passionately to my constituents and to me. If I do nothing else for my constituency, I will try to boost the economy in every way I can because every job counts. I rest my comments with that.

Kirsty Blackman: I fear that, if I was to talk about the names of all the distilleries in my constituency, the debate would be much shorter than if the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) were to do so. In fact, I have much more of a tendency to drink gin than whisky, although other spirits are available.
It was interesting to hear the words “economically fragile”. That is an incredibly good point. Rural depopulation is a real issue. The Scottish Government are doing what we can to ensure that it does not continue, but if the UK Government keep working against what we are doing to encourage people to live and stay in our rural communities, we will have a real problem. That is not a small thing.
We tabled our amendments because we specifically wanted the word “whisky” on the Order Paper and we wanted to make the case in relation to whisky. However, I will not be pushing our amendments to a vote, and will support that of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) because I concede that his is better. I am always happy to do that in such situations.
The reality is that Scotch whisky is 4.9% of the Scottish economy. Some £8.1 billion can be attributed to the sale of alcohol, around 60% of which comes from whisky exports. The numbers stated by the right hon. Member about how the differential rates work and how much people are taxed on those 14 units were incredibly interesting. The Government’s purpose is to make money from some of the alcohol measures, but there is also a population behaviour change intention behind what they do with tax on spirits and alcohol, particularly the allowance on draught beer. They have different taxes to encourage a change of behaviour, or differential behaviour in people. The Government may intend to use this tax to shift some of the population, but they are actually discouraging people from buying the very spirits that a huge amount of our livelihoods relies on. It is the case that 90% of spirits in the UK are produced in Scotland. The Government’s measures therefore have a massive negative impact on Scotland.
The average price of a bottle of Scotch whisky is £15.22 at a supermarket in Scotland. Following the new alcohol duty plus the VAT, £11.40 of that £15.22 will go to the Treasury. That is such a significant amount, and does not compare with other alcohol. I appreciate what the Government are trying to do on draught, and it is important that they have laid out their rationale for doing so—that was very helpful—but this is incredibly unfair and risks damaging those economically fragile areas, particularly in rural Scotland. Those areas have already suffered as a result of Brexit, with people’s reduced ability to freely move here.
I want to raise a small flag with the Minister in relation to the Public Bill Committee. When we come to that stage, I will be raising questions around clause 87, which is on post-duty point dilution of alcoholic products. I know there have already been problems in relation to that, so when we come to that stage of the Committee, I would appreciate Ministers being absolutely clear about their reasons for the changes in clause 87. If they are able to lay out those reasons clearly, that will reduce the number of questions I am likely to ask.
In summary, we support the amendment proposed by Liberal Democrat Members. We agree with the Scotch Whisky Association and think that the increase in duty is unfair and hits spirits, particularly Scotch whisky, unfairly. We want to stand up for our constituents, our constituencies, rural Scotland and Scotland as a whole in supporting the amendment.

Abena Oppong-Asare: I rise to speak, on behalf of the Opposition, to the clauses that are related to the tax treatment of devolved social security benefits and the new alcohol duty regime.
I will address clause 27 briefly. Clause 27 introduces a new power to enable the tax treatment of new or new top-up welfare payments, introduced by devolved Administrations, to be confirmed as social security income through secondary legislation. That will allow  the UK Government to confirm the tax treatment of new or new top-up payments within the new tax year rather than be subject to the UK parliamentary timetable.
I note that the income tax treatment of social security benefit is currently legislated for in part 10 of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003, and that this clause will introduce a new power to add new benefits to the table of taxable benefits included in the Act. I can see that the clause is largely administrative. Therefore, the Opposition do not take issue with the clause and will support it.
I will now move on to the clauses concerning the new alcohol duty regime. The Bill contains 77 clauses establishing a new structure for alcohol duty, but we will discuss just some of those today, before moving to consider the remainder in Public Bill Committee.
Labour agreed with the principles behind the alcohol duty review. We want to see the alcohol duty system made simpler and more consistent. We recognise that there is a balance to be struck between supporting businesses and consumers, protecting public health, and maintaining a source of revenue for the Exchequer. We have consistently raised concerns about the Government’s rushed and confused messaging on this area.
Before I come to the clauses and schedules, I want to paint a brief picture of the context behind the changes. Back in October 2020, the Government announced a call for evidence, seeking views on how the alcohol duty system could be reformed. At the time, they said this would make the system
“simpler, more economically rational and less administratively burdensome on businesses and HMRC.”
However, what we have seen since then is indecision, U-turns and delays.
Businesses and consumers had to wait until September 2022 for the Government’s response to the alcohol duty consultation. What ensued was chaos. In the shambolic mini-Budget that crushed the British economy, the then Chancellor announced a freeze on alcohol duty that was due to come into force in February 2023, but then the new Chancellor scrapped the freeze in October’s autumn statement. Fast forward to December, and I was back standing at the Dispatch Box responding to another Government’s U-turn, that time deciding that the freeze was back in place until August 2023.
The Government have now confirmed that the freeze will end in August and a new system of alcohol duty will be put in place. Alcohol duty rates will be adjusted in line with inflation and moved to a system that links duty rates to alcohol by volume. Clause 47 sets out the new regime, while clause 48 and schedule 7 specify the new adjusted rates of alcohol duty for different drinks. I note that some sectors are concerned about these changes—particularly wine producers and Scottish whisky producers, as the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) highlighted.
The reason the Tories have hit people and businesses with stealth taxes is that they have failed to get the growth that our country needs and have failed to get a grip on inflation. That is what makes the boasts of halving inflation so hollow. Prices are already soaring, hitting industries with steep tax rises.

Mark Jenkinson: Can the hon. Lady set out in detail the Opposition’s plans for alcohol duty and how they might differ from the Government’s plans?

Abena Oppong-Asare: As I mentioned, we have consistently raised concerns about the Government’s U-turns on the issue. We have scrutinised them and put forward recommendations, which the hon. Member will hear us talk about in further detail in the Public Bill Committee.
It is important that today the Minister lays out what measures the Government will take to support the sectors most affected by the duty changes, as well as what consideration the Treasury has given to the potentially inflationary impact of the increases. The explanatory notes to the Bill state:
“The commencement of changes to approvals will be announced at a later date.”
Perhaps the Minister could give some certainty to businesses by fleshing out some further detail today.
Clause 50 and schedule 8 set out measures for a new draught relief that will provide a reduced rate of duty on qualifying draught products. Clause 51 sets out the requirement that qualifying draught products be under 8.5% ABV and be packaged in containers that hold at least 20 litres and are designed to connect to a dispensing system. Clause 52 sets out the rules on the repackaging of qualifying draught products. Decanting from 20-litre containers into smaller containers will be prohibited unless the products are to be consumed on the premises at which decanting takes place.
Labour supports these measures, which will support and protect the hospitality sector, but our analysis has found that more than 70,000 venues have had to reduce their opening hours because of energy bills. I have seen that in my constituency. These are businesses that enrich our communities and boost our high streets, but they are being let down by the Government and many of these changes will come far too late.
I note that the draught relief has been designed in a way that will exclude the wine sector. Can the Minister explain why? Will he let us know whether the Government will introduce any other measures to support British wine and spirit producers?
Clause 54 lays out measures to replace the small brewers relief with a small producer relief. Clause 55 specifies that eligible producers will be those whose products have an alcoholic strength of less than 8.5% ABV and who produce less than 4,500 hectolitres of alcohol per year. The remaining clauses and schedules lay out precise measures for calculating rates of relief.
Labour introduced the small brewers relief in 2002 and is proud of the effect that it has had by supporting small brewers and creating a vibrant UK beer scene. We therefore support the extension of relief to other producers, but I note that that may not occur under the new scheme, as British wine and spirit producers are largely excluded from these measures. Perhaps the Minister could lay out why the scheme has not been further extended.
In conclusion, Labour recognises the need to simplify the alcohol duty regime while striking a balance between supporting businesses and consumers, protecting public health and maintaining a source of revenue for the Exchequer.

Alistair Carmichael: May I take up the point about small producers? Deerness distillery, in my constituency, is a family-owned business that is seeking to move into whisky production. Surely, as a small producer in a market  dominated by big corporates, it should be given the same opportunity to grow as a brewer. Why, in principle, should there be any difference in their treatment?

Abena Oppong-Asare: We, too, are concerned about that, and I have met various stakeholders in the sector who have highlighted their concerns. I hope that the Minister will take the issue on board in his response.
We do not oppose the clauses and schedules, but we want answers to the questions that have been raised, and, most important, we want certainty for the businesses and consumers who have suffered over the past few months and years as a result of the constant chopping and changing that the country has seen from various Conservative Governments.

James Cartlidge: Before I turn to the very good speeches that we have heard during the current debate, let me clarify a point relating to our earlier debate on the electricity generator levy. I mistakenly said that “private wire” was included in the levy, when of course I meant to say that it was excluded.
Let me begin by saying that I welcome the support expressed by the hon. Member for Erith and Thamesmead (Abena Oppong-Asare) for the clause relating to devolved welfare payments. As for alcohol duty, the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) may not recall the debate that he initiated in Westminster Hall in October 2017, when I was a mere Back Bencher, but I was the first Member to intervene on his speech. All the others were Scottish. I intervened because a leading company in my constituency produces the bottle tops for the whisky trade. That, along with the East Anglian grain that is sent up to Scotland from time to time to help support the sector, underlines the fact that this is a UK industry, and a UK export. We are all proud of Scotch whisky and the role that it plays in our economy. However, I must say this to the right hon. Gentleman, and also to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), who spoke with his usual eloquence and conjured up wonderful images. I understand the importance of the Scotch whisky sector, and we have supported it—in nine of the last 10 Budgets, we have either frozen or cut the tax—but the key point is that not introducing the RPI-linked increase would have a significant cost.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister is making our case himself, so presumably he will be joining us in the Lobby—as, indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland should be doing—or else accepting my amendment.

James Cartlidge: I had never thought of the right hon. Gentleman as a cheeky chappie, but for that brief moment, he almost was. Let me now address his amendment 7. The Scottish National party Members have, very nobly, effectively withdrawn their amendments to ride on the back of it, which is perfectly fair: they seek, ultimately, to arrive at roughly the same point, which could be described as the protection of spirits, and Scotch whisky in particular, from the RPI-linked increase.
The proposal in amendment 7 would cost an amount between £1.7 billion and £2 billion. An overall RPI freeze would cost £5 billion across the scorecard. We have, of course, supported freezes in the past, and it was  I who announced the freeze back in December. Members may recall the reason for that freeze: in view of the August reform, we did not want the sector to go through two separate alcohol tax increases. We supported the industry, but it is expensive, and with the public finances as they are, we feel that the responsible option is to introduce the RPI-linked increase—which, after all, is not a real-terms increase—but, nevertheless, to bring in the differential duty to support our pubs.

Alistair Carmichael: rose—

James Cartlidge: I will give way to the right hon. Gentleman, for the last time.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister needs to look at the actual data relating to the revenue brought in over these years of cuts and freezes, because the story that it tells is very different from the forecasts on which he relies. He should remember that in 2015 the forecast was for a 2% reduction, but in fact there was a 4% increase. When will the Government become a bit more realistic about the effect of their own policies in this area?

James Cartlidge: I have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s use of the word “realistic”. I have met representatives of the Scotch Whisky Association, whom I greatly respect, and they have said to me that if we freeze the tax we get the revenue. Unfortunately, however, the Government have what I believe is the very important and successful policy of using an independent body, the Office for Budget Responsibility, which makes forecasts independently for Governments on the effects of fiscal measures. [Interruption.] I hear voices behind me saying that they are wrong. The point is that the OBR is not a collection of soothsayers employed to predict, entirely accurately, exactly what will happen in the future. With the greatest respect to everyone, if that was the case, I suspect they would spend rather more of their time looking at accountancy of the turf-related kind rather than trying to forecast the national accounts. The point is that this enables us to ground fiscal events in a forecast of where we are at that time and the fiscal costs at the time, therefore adding credibility to the decisions we make and avoiding the easy situation where we do not have to make the difficult trade-offs that households and businesses know that, in reality, we have to face. If we want to cut one tax, we have to find the money from somewhere else. It is a good discipline.

Jamie Stone: Will the Minister give way?

James Cartlidge: I will take this very last soupçon: a final intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

Jamie Stone: The Minister is nothing if not courteous, but does he not accept that he would increase the revenue base by increasing industry and economic activity? What message does this send to—let me get the names right—Wolfburn in Dunnet or 8 Doors in John O’Groats? These are new distilleries, just starting out. From little acorns, mighty oaks can grow, and those mighty oaks can give the Government lots of acorns in tax revenue.

James Cartlidge: The hon. Gentleman is always courteous, and I send the message to him that for every single business, charity and household in the country, one thing that trumps all is wanting the Government to run the public finances in a stable way so that businesses  can have confidence that the investments they make will be in a growing and stable economy. I totally understand where he is coming from, but he has not persuaded me that he has a way to find those billions of pounds. I hope that I have nevertheless offered the assurance needed for hon. Members to retract their proposed amendments, and that clauses 27, 47 to 48 and 50 to 60 will stand part of the Bill as we end our theme of alcohol for the evening.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 27 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 47 and 48 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Amendment proposed: 7, in schedule 7, page 334, line 18, leave out “£31.64” and insert “£28.74”—(Mr. Carmichael.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.

The Committee divided: Ayes 54, Noes 290.
Question accordingly negatived.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 50 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 8 agreed to.
Clauses 51 to 54 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Clauses 55 to 60 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Deputy Speaker resumed the Chair.
Bill (Clauses 5 to 15, 18 to 25, 27, 47, 48, 50 to 60 and 121 to 312, and schedules 1, 7 to 9 and 14 to 18), as amended, reported, and ordered to lie on the Table.

Business without Debate

The Speaker’s Absence

Ordered,
That the Speaker have leave of absence on Monday 24 April to attend the Conference of Speakers of the European Union Parliaments (EUSC) in Prague to participate in the session dealing with Russian aggression against Ukraine.—(Joy Morrissey.)

PETITION

Petition - Teaching real life skills

Rachael Maskell: I rise to present this petition on teaching real life skills, which calls for the provision of the teaching of life skills in secondary schools in budgeting, loans management and taxation and also in job and employment skills. It is a credit to Katelyn Banks, a young petitioner, that she presented this petition to me to bring to the House today.
The petition states:
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioner and make a life skills class mandatory in secondary schools.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of Katelyn Banks,
Declares that the current educational curriculum does not adequately prepare students for the future; notes that that upon leaving secondary school, most students are not taught how to prepare for job interviews, manage loans or do taxes; further declares that the secondary school curriculum should therefore introduce a ‘lessons for the future’ class which teaches students how to budget, manage monetary funds and prepare for post-qualification life.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioner and make a life skills class mandatory in secondary schools.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002829]

Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Joy Morrissey.)

Rob Butler: At midnight on 31 March 1948, the National Fire Service was disbanded, and, on 1 April 1948, Buckinghamshire fire brigade came into service. Seventy-five years on, it is fitting to mark in Parliament the contribution that what is now known as Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service makes to the local community.
Bucks Fire serves more than 800,000 people, with its headquarters in the proud county town of Aylesbury, the heart of my constituency. Geographically, it covers an area of some 723 square miles, spanning Aylesbury vale, the Chilterns, south Bucks, Milton Keynes and Wycombe. I am pleased to see that so many colleagues from across the service’s footprint—especially those on the Conservative Benches—have been able to join me here today, despite the hour.
I would like to put on record the thanks of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr Baker) to Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service for its hard work and dedication to protect his constituents. The Minister wished to listen to this debate in person, but is on Government business in Northern Ireland. I am sure that all colleagues here will join him in expressing their gratitude for the hard work of Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service for their constituents.
It is often said that those in our emergency services are the people who run towards danger. I would suggest that that is the case for our firefighters above all, as they literally go into burning buildings to protect other people’s lives and livelihoods. The bravery of our firefighters rightly inspires the public’s admiration time and again. It is truly awe-inspiring to hear tales of their heroism.
Therefore, it is no surprise that becoming a firefighter is still one of the dream jobs for children who are asked what they would like to be when they grow up. These days, they are no doubt spurred on by the brilliant “Fireman Sam” in Pontypandy. For my generation, though, the inspiration came from the indomitable crew of Trumpton fire brigade—Pugh, Pugh, Barney McGrew, Cuthbert, Dibble and Grubb, led by Captain Flack—although, if memory serves, the firefighters of “Trumpton” never actually put out a blaze. Instead, they removed fallen branches, unblocked the movement of the town clock and even retrieved the mayor’s hat from a tree. Thankfully, to the best of my knowledge, no such incident has occurred in Aylesbury.
The work of the 359 firefighters and more than 125 support staff at Bucks Fire and Rescue is no less varied, but many of their jobs are far more serious. The service receives around 16,000 calls a year, with roughly 8,000 emergency incidents last year alone. In just the past few weeks, crews have been called out to everything from a cooker fire to a blaze at a derelict building, from children locked in cars to car crash victims needing immediate emergency care. Indeed, last year the service was co-respondent to more than 605 medical emergencies in support of the South Central Ambulance Service, and the rescue of bariatric patients is especially valued by the NHS.
The range of incident responses is of endless and almost incalculable benefit to my constituents but, as we all know, by far the best way to save lives is to prevent them from occurring in the first place. Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service provides excellent help, advice and support for people wanting to reduce their fire risk, whether at home or at work, with a special interactive tool for small businesses, of which we have many thousands in Buckinghamshire.
The service also contributes to our community in other respects, including by facilitating a hoarding support group and visiting schools for children with special educational needs. Notably, it also runs a superb apprenticeship scheme, which is not just for the firefighters of the future but for mechanics and finance and human resources staff, and not just for young school leavers, but for older people changing career or building their qualifications.
Perhaps the jewel in the crown of Bucks Fire is the urban search and rescue service, or USAR. Aylesbury fire station is part of a national network of 19 USAR bases in England set up following the 9/11 attack on New York in 2001. Those bases have the people, vehicles and equipment needed in the aftermath of major incidents—not just terrorism, which thankfully is very rare, but collapsed buildings, major transport incidents and natural disasters.
The USAR crews at Aylesbury are equipped with four lorries, two personnel carriers and five modules containing specialist equipment ranging from fast-cutting saws to timber for the rapid shoring up of unsafe structures. What is more, the USAR team in Aylesbury is one of just a handful that also includes a dog, Huw, a labrador-springer cross who has been trained to recognise and concentrate on the specific odour given off by living people, something that is massively important when searching for survivors of a disaster. The team at Bucks Fire’s USAR is widely recognised as one of the best performing in the country. It has come second in the national awards four times and been the overall winner twice, most recently in 2021.
Given that extremely impressive track record, I am sure you will understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I was utterly shocked when I learnt that the Bucks USAR team was under threat of closure. The reason was budget constraints at the Home Office, resulting in a decision to reduce the number of USAR teams across the country. While I fully recognise the challenging economic times we are in and the acute need to ensure every penny of public money is well spent, the proposed scrapping of Bucks USAR seemed to me to lack both foundation and reason, not least as there had been no consultation with the fire service, nor indeed any assessment of the potential risks arising from such a change.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for listening to my impassioned pleas to rethink that decision and maintain this vital service. Not only did he listen, but he acted. I was absolutely delighted to learn last week that he has now secured the future of Bucks USAR until April 2025. His fast response and positive approach are greatly appreciated across the county.

Ben Everitt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the expertise of USAR is appreciated not just across Buckinghamshire but far and wide? It acts as a regional hub of excellence in search and rescue.

Rob Butler: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will talk a little about the wider impact of Bucks USAR. He represents a Milton Keynes constituency, so it is opportune to say that people often ask, “Why does Buckinghamshire have an urban search and rescue team?” Well, it is because Milton Keynes is a major urban centre in the area, as are Wycombe—I have already referred to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe—and Aylesbury, which is fast growing. So Buckinghamshire does need the Bucks urban search and rescue team, and I am absolutely delighted that its future is secure for my constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Ben Everitt).
Needless to say, I and the residents of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes want USAR to survive well after 2025 so that Bucks Fire and Rescue Service can continue to make such an important contribution to the local community, so I will make a few points to help my right hon. Friend the Minister convince our Treasury colleagues that a long-term settlement should be given to the Home Office in the next spending review to ensure the long-term future of our USAR service.
I have seen for myself the difference that USAR makes. When I was mid-way through a recent visit to Aylesbury fire station, the USAR team was called out to reports of a serious road collision. The USAR units had been specifically requested to attend as the incident demanded specialists and equipment beyond the normal firefighters and their engines. The accident was not in Bucks, though; it was over the border in Oxfordshire, highlighting perfectly the wider impact of USAR in the south-east of England, which my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North mentioned.
As the closest urban search and rescue service, the Aylesbury team was first on the scene to assist colleagues from Thames Valley police. If Bucks USAR had been abolished, the closest unit would have been in either London or the west midlands, and the time taken to reach the incident would have been an hour longer—as we all know, every minute counts when it comes to saving lives. I respectfully suggest to Treasury colleagues that as Buckinghamshire is so centrally placed in the heart of England, our USAR service is invaluable not just to our own residents but to those in Oxfordshire, Hertfordshire and, at times, beyond.
It is also worth highlighting that the USAR team is expert and experienced in searching for and rescuing people from tunnels. The construction of High Speed 2 has dramatically increased the potential requirement for that type of activity, and it is surely right that the cost of having a team ever prepared for a national infrastructure project should come from a national budget. Bucks USAR is already making a contribution of national importance. The fire service has, at its own expense, constructed a specialist training facility in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith). Using burning cars, a plane fuselage, school equipment and more than 600 tonnes of rubble, the site recently staged a full disaster training exercise for USAR teams from Lancashire, Lincolnshire, Merseyside, Tyne and Wear, and West Yorkshire. The site could and should become a national training facility under the national resilience framework. That one exercise alone amply demonstrates that importance and significance of Bucks USAR to the entire country.
What is more, under the leadership of Chief Fire Officer Jason Thelwell and fire authority chairman Councillor Simon Rouse, Bucks Fire and Rescue Service has demonstrated that considerable financial efficiencies can be made even within the current funding model. That is because Bucks Fire operates an integrated system in which its USAR team combines its specialist capabilities with normal firefighter duties. If that were replicated by all USAR units across the country, not only would the saving desired by the Home Office be made, but there would be cash to spare.
Before I conclude my remarks, it is only right that I acknowledge that although we are here to celebrate the successes of Bucks Fire and Rescue Service and its enormous contribution to our county, it also has challenges to address. As right hon. and hon. Members are aware, a recent inspection report into the fire service nationally suggested that bullying and misogynistic behaviour, sexist language and racism are widespread—that is of great concern. Naturally, I wanted to discover what the situation is locally and, more importantly, what is being done to tackle any such behaviour in our local fire service.
The senior management of Bucks Fire do not pretend that such incidents never happen, but they have assured me that everything possible is done on a daily basis to root out poor behaviour and, indeed, that they are proactive in their approach. For example, Bucks Fire is thought to be the only service in the country to insist on enhanced DBS checks for all frontline staff. A letter sent to the fire service by the Inspector of Fire and Rescue Services has outlined the considerable progress made in this area since the last inspection, with staff describing a positive change in the way the service was raising awareness of and promoting equality, diversity and inclusion.
There has also been progress in other areas since the 2021 inspection report by His Majesty’s chief inspector of fire and rescue services. Two years ago, concerns were expressed about the number of firefighters available, as well as about general funding. The chief fire officer and his team have made great strides since then, and there is now an almost full complement of firefighters, and a £5 increase in the precept has brought about significant benefits.
Let me finish by saying simply that I, along with fellow hon. Members from Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes, are extremely grateful for the hard work, dedication and sense of duty demonstrated day in, day out by the staff of Bucks Fire and Rescue Service. They protect us in the face of danger. They save lives. Seventy-five years after its establishment, we thank them for their service and for their continued contribution to our local community.

Chris Philp: Let me start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) on securing this evening’s Adjournment debate and on his eloquent and comprehensive speech. I echo the tribute he paid to firefighters not just in Buckinghamshire but up and down the country, who often put themselves in the line of danger in order to keep us and our families and constituents safe. As he said, they often run towards danger to protect their fellow citizens. I put on the record my and the Government’s thanks—and, I am sure, the thanks  of the whole House—to firefighters for the work they do up and down the country on a daily basis. I pay particular tribute to the work done by the urban search and rescue services, whose specialist capabilities are unique and often necessary at very difficult times such as complicated and dangerous road traffic accidents of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend.
I also congratulate my hon. Friend and the other Members present on their assiduous and always charming campaigning on behalf of the people of Buckinghamshire to preserve the urban search and rescue service. As my hon. Friend said, there was a plan—which, I should add, predated my time as Minister for Crime, Policing and Fire—to reduce the number of urban search and rescue centres from 19 to 14. I reviewed those plans and listened very carefully to the arguments raised by my hon. Friend, Members from the county of Buckinghamshire and others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Nigel Huddleston) and Members from Norfolk. I studied their proposals and comments very carefully, as any diligent Minister would.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury said, I was pleased to be able to find ways to reorder arrangements internally in the Home Office so that we can keep all 19 urban search and rescue centres open until at least April 2025. We will also make sure that we bid for funding that goes beyond April 2025, to keep all 19 open into the future. Of course, I cannot prejudge the outcome of any future spending review, but I can give the commitment that we will include in our next spending review bid a robustly argued case for funding to keep all 19 centres open, while at the same time making sure that the necessary renewal of equipment happens. I personally accept the arguments that my hon. Friend and others have made, and I was delighted that I was able not just to listen but to respond substantively to the concerns raised. I congratulate him again on his successful campaigning on this topic.
At the end of his speech, my hon. Friend mentioned the question of resources for fire services more generally. The fire funding settlement that we announced a few months ago for the current financial year, which started a week or two ago, sees the average fire and rescue authority—assuming it uses the full precept flexibility—getting about 8% more funding this year than it did last year, so there is a strong financial settlement for the fire service there.
Finally, my hon. Friend drew attention to some issues to do with culture, standards and behaviour in the fire service. There was a recent inspector’s report covering that topic across the country as a whole, as well as the recent Nazir Afzal report into the London Fire Brigade. I am deeply concerned about these issues of culture, and I do expect the fire service to address them. I expect the fire service at all levels, right through to individual frontline firefighters, watch commanders and fire station commanders, to make sure that the right culture prevails. Where there is inappropriate behaviour, whether it is sexist, misogynist, racist or homophobic, that needs to be immediately called out and eradicated. It is up to every single firefighter, as well as fire service leaders, to make sure that happens. I am very pleased to hear that Buckinghamshire Fire and Rescue Service conducts full vetting checks on all its firefighters—that is something that other fire services can learn from, and it is something I have asked colleagues in the Home Office to have a  very careful look at. There is good practice in Buckinghamshire, and where Buckinghamshire leads, perhaps the rest of the country can follow.
Mr Deputy Speaker, I am glad to be here—perhaps unusually—with a good news story, confirming that we have listened to parliamentary colleagues and responded  positively, and that the urban search and rescue centre in Buckinghamshire and the other 18 across the rest of the country will continue.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.